PDA

View Full Version : Guns don't kill people... Doctors do :)



Dragonfighter1
Jan 16th 2009, 03:58 AM
Guns Don't Kill People

Doctors
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.

Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.
Statistics courtesy of FBI

So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.

We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention!


Pass this on to at least ten of your friends and you will receive a surprise.
(Someone will give you a wedgie! )
If you are injured by the wedgie- DO NOT SEE A DOCTOR!
Just shoot yourself instead...its just as effective and a whole lot cheaper!

Truthinlove
Jan 16th 2009, 05:00 PM
:lol:


We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!


:rofl: :pp Love it....I'm going to use this logic the next time an anti-gun person starts spouting off why they think guns should be banned.

awestruckchild
Jan 16th 2009, 08:12 PM
Oh, laughed so hard I cried! Hubby gonna' love this one!

Semi-tortured
Jan 16th 2009, 08:16 PM
I wonder what the stat is for doctors who accidentally killed a patient with their gun? :hmm:

I'm sure Gregory House has thought about it at times.

Dragonfighter1
Jan 16th 2009, 08:26 PM
Yeah? Well if its so funny:cry::cry::cry::cry:..where are my reps...

Signed,

THE rep hound

(blatant beggar aint I?):rolleyes:

amazzin
Jan 16th 2009, 08:32 PM
Yeah? Well if its so funny:cry::cry::cry::cry:..where are my reps...

Signed,

THE rep hound

(blatant beggar aint I?):rolleyes:

Bro what's with the reps????

I suggest you look in the mirror of God's Word and see what God says about you....you seem to be someone craving for attention and love.

:cool:

moonglow
Jan 16th 2009, 08:35 PM
You just want the "can of worms award" back is why you post stuff like this...:rolleyes: :cool:

:lol:

Dragonfighter1
Jan 16th 2009, 08:42 PM
Bro what's with the reps????

I suggest you look in the mirror of God's Word and see what God says about you....you seem to be someone craving for attention and love.

:cool:
Its a standing joke to me and several of my more common friends on here. Sorry if it offends you. It means nothing to me at all. I could just as soon have them all taken away. And I mean that.

I like the mirror of Jesus, its very good for straightening me out and making me see the humor in mans foolish attempts at self importance.

Dragon fighter chapter one verse 15: Verily verily I say unto me, Vanity vanity all is vanity (and reps):lol:.

Dragonfighter1
Jan 16th 2009, 08:45 PM
You just want the "can of worms award" back is why you post stuff like this...:rolleyes: :cool:

:lol:
YES PLEASE.. I am collecting them too. can I have the double can? or is that being too greedy?

amazzin
Jan 16th 2009, 08:54 PM
Its a standing joke to me and several of my more common friends on here. Sorry if it offends you. It means nothing to me at all. I could just as soon have them all taken away. And I mean that.

I like the mirror of Jesus, its very good for straightening me out and making me see the humor in mans foolish attempts at self importance.

Dragon fighter chapter one verse 15: Verily verily I say unto me, Vanity vanity all is vanity (and reps):lol:.

LOL,...I said that tongue in cheek !

Sending you my bill for reps delivery

moonglow
Jan 16th 2009, 09:04 PM
YES PLEASE.. I am collecting them too. can I have the double can? or is that being too greedy?

I don't know...I mean gee I finally gave it to someone else for a change...kind of soon to give it back to you...PLUS you had it so long to start with! :lol::lol::P:P

A820djd
Jan 17th 2009, 12:14 AM
I'm sorry but where are your sources?

Dani H
Jan 17th 2009, 01:11 AM
Its a standing joke to me and several of my more common friends on here. Sorry if it offends you. It means nothing to me at all. I could just as soon have them all taken away. And I mean that.

I like the mirror of Jesus, its very good for straightening me out and making me see the humor in mans foolish attempts at self importance.

Dragon fighter chapter one verse 15: Verily verily I say unto me, Vanity vanity all is vanity (and reps):lol:.

To deliver you of your vanity, please take all your reps and give them to me. I'll carry that burden for you, my dear brother, because I love you so.

tt1106
Jan 17th 2009, 01:15 AM
Do not store up for yourselves reps on earth, where mods and admins destroy, and where trolls de-rep in and steal.

Rocking horse
Jan 17th 2009, 01:31 AM
well, if those figures are true, then I'm totally amazed. I'm Australian and the normal law abiding citizen here is prohibited from owning a gun.....crooks have them of course....and I've always been very ... anti gun, and I guess I still feel that way...however, what you say is very interesting. you say 80 million americans have guns...lol....our total country population is only 21 million !!

Of course here we just get stories about Colombine and mass shootings like that, so maybe it makes it look a lot worse from our point of view. I went to America once and was terrified about going because i thought everyone had guns. I only went because i had a friend that lived there, and they owned a gun. And at that time, there were a lot of drive by shootings of tourists, so maybe i had reason to be scared. But of course i've known other people who have gone there and felt very safe.....

I wonder what our Australian stats would be on this subject.

Thanks for an interesting topic.

Rocky

Dragonfighter1
Jan 17th 2009, 01:33 PM
To deliver you of your vanity, please take all your reps and give them to me. I'll carry that burden for you, my dear brother, because I love you so.
Actually we have both max'ed out the little blue light bulbs so lets both dump our reps and both start again from scratch?

DF
P.S. Please tell me where you dump your reps so I can pick them up with ease. :lol:

Dragonfighter1
Jan 17th 2009, 01:37 PM
I'm sorry but where are your sources?
1./The Fbi,
2./The Dept of socialization of the eternal control of the people of those elected to rule the minions
3./Some DUde named Dragonfighter1 ( really an awesome guy- give him reos for his impeccable research!)
4./The department of Medical stoopidity
5./Google
6./Wikipedia- OH yeah!

Dragonfighter1
Jan 17th 2009, 01:38 PM
Do not store up for yourselves reps on earth, where mods and admins destroy, and where trolls de-rep in and steal.
oooooo I like that! Reps to you for originality!

Dragonfighter1
Jan 17th 2009, 01:41 PM
well, if those figures are true, then I'm totally amazed. I'm Australian and the normal law abiding citizen here is prohibited from owning a gun.....crooks have them of course....and I've always been very ... anti gun, and I guess I still feel that way...however, what you say is very interesting. you say 80 million americans have guns...lol....our total country population is only 21 million !!

Of course here we just get stories about Colombine and mass shootings like that, so maybe it makes it look a lot worse from our point of view. I went to America once and was terrified about going because i thought everyone had guns. I only went because i had a friend that lived there, and they owned a gun. And at that time, there were a lot of drive by shootings of tourists, so maybe i had reason to be scared. But of course i've known other people who have gone there and felt very safe.....

I wonder what our Australian stats would be on this subject.

Thanks for an interesting topic.

Rocky
The info we got on Australia was that when they passed the last round of severe gun laws that within a short time violent crime and such had jumpoed severely and that the absence of guns was part of the reason. Ofcourse I dont have a source so t may be incorrect. Can you comment?

moonglow
Jan 17th 2009, 04:22 PM
Here's some stats for you:

Hospital Mistakes Kill 270,491 Medicare Patients in 3 Years, Cost $8.8 Billion (http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2008/8-04-08-HospitalMistakes.htm)

Doctors' mistakes kill thousands (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article5114964.ece) (Scotland)

Medical errors 'kill thousands' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/682000.stm) (UK)

Medical errors kill almost 100000 Americans a year (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1117251)


Fed: Medical mistakes kill 10,000 people a year, Choice says (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-85697104.html) Australia

System tracks gun deaths: Details are being collected on murders, suicides in (http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/09.28/firearms.html)the U.S.
By William J. Cromie
Gazette Staff

Recent accounts of young school students shooting each other has sent a shiver through the nation; journalists call the killings an "epidemic" and legislators have begun debates on new gun control laws. As tragic as these homicides are, however, they represent only the tip of an iceberg of gun deaths in the United States. Every year, more than 30,000 people are shot to death in murders, suicides, and accidents. Another 65,000 suffer from gun injuries.

"The total number of school shootings each year is typically far less than one day's toll attributable to firearms in the United States," notes David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Research and Control Center. "Defective Firestone tires may have killed 103 people over a number of years, but firearms kill about 85 people every day in this country."

I don't know...seems like neither are safe!

God bless

Rocking horse
Jan 18th 2009, 03:17 AM
The info we got on Australia was that when they passed the last round of severe gun laws that within a short time violent crime and such had jumpoed severely and that the absence of guns was part of the reason. Ofcourse I dont have a source so t may be incorrect. Can you comment?

My comment is only my personal opinion I have no stats to back what I think. But I would doubt very much that because of the absence of guns crime has jumped..."severely". We now have "gangs" so I'm told, which we didn't used to have and they have their "weapons" knives or whatever...but I certainly feel perfectly safe, though of course there are areas and times that I wouldn't go to certain places.

I still think that no matter how low the death rate is from guns, it would still be a lot less if no one had them.

diffangle
Jan 18th 2009, 05:15 AM
I still think that no matter how low the death rate is from guns, it would still be a lot less if no one had them.
Less people would die if we didn't have cars either. ;) The thing is, is that guns can actually save lives, as I can attest to, I had a friend who is alive today b/c of her gun. It's also telling when it became a law for every household in Kennesaw Georgia to have a gun in it and their crime rate went to almost nil and you look at some place like Chicago with some of the strictest gun control laws in the country and see how bad their crime rate is.:hmm:

NHL Fever
Jan 18th 2009, 07:04 AM
Guns Don't Kill People

Doctors
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.

Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.
Statistics courtesy of FBI


Those numbers are entertaining, and gun-lovers love them, but they are just so misleading and disingenuous. There are number of critical, intentionally ignored differences:

One is that people who die from guns, were not going to die before that encounter, whereas the majority of those who die after encountering a doctor would have died either way - that's why they were going to the doctor. The joke uses the same faulty logic as saying you should not go to the hospital, because more people die there than anywhere else. Other similar advice - "if you want to avoid dents don't take your car to the autobody shop - I see more cars with dents there than anywhere else."

You are not given the number of people saved per year by a doctor per unit population compared to the number saved by guns. The gun portion is microscopic in comparison.

You can die doing many things, or interacting with many different people. If you want to be safe, lock yourself in a bubble and don't go anywhere, do anything, or talk to anyone. The real issue is benefit vs cost. That is why we drive, because the benefit far outweighs the cost despite the deaths, and also why people go to doctors. Guns are a different matter, because its far from clear that the benefit outweighs the cost of gun crime and other gun deaths. Although the risk is relatively low, the benefit is arguable even lower.


Less people would die if we didn't have cars either. ;) The thing is, is that guns can actually save lives, as I can attest to, I had a friend who is alive today b/c of her gun. It's also telling when it became a law for every household in Kennesaw Georgia to have a gun in it and their crime rate went to almost nil and you look at some place like Chicago with some of the strictest gun control laws in the country and see how bad their crime rate is.:hmm:

You comments represent some of what I believe are common myths. Its because few actually consider the real consequences of these situations. In reality many more people would die if we did not have motorized transport, because that is part of the modern transport industry that brings vital fuel, medicines, experts, materials, and many other things that preserve life where it otherwise could not be preserved. If you just cut it off, many people would not be able to survive. Didn't think of it that way did you? Its more complicated than 'cars kill people'. Yes they do, and not having them would kill many more.

When talking about crime in different areas, also consider that things exist outside the united states. With the most liberal gun laws in the entire modern world, the US has the highest murder rates. Not just higher, 3 times higher (per person) than Canada or any western European nation. The US is on par with India and Armenia. That's for all murders. If you're talking gun murders the US is up in Mexico or Costa Rica territory, with more than 5 times as many per person than canada or any european nation. Guns are not helping to prevent rapes either, since the US tops all European nations per person in that category as well. Likewise the US tops europe and canada for assaults, ranking just under Zimbabwe. Explanations?


I'm sure somebody has a great party story about a poor lady who fended off a rapist, or an equally poor lady who would have had she been armed. But you can't make laws based on single incidents, nor do anecdotes = useful data. Perhaps I'm a military person, it's quite possible that I would be safer if I had a grenade launcher under my bed or AP mines in my closet, but that does not mean its a good idea for the population at large. Although its perfectly possible to use the grenade launcher safely with proper training, that still does not make it a good idea for everyone.

Rocking horse
Jan 18th 2009, 07:21 AM
Less people would die if we didn't have cars either. ;) The thing is, is that guns can actually save lives, as I can attest to, I had a friend who is alive today b/c of her gun. It's also telling when it became a law for every household in Kennesaw Georgia to have a gun in it and their crime rate went to almost nil and you look at some place like Chicago with some of the strictest gun control laws in the country and see how bad their crime rate is.:hmm:

Point taken.....I guess it's just hard for me to understand because I've never lived in a place that allows guns, and where I am has always been very anti gun, so thats the main view I've always heard. There are always more than one way to look at things.

daughter
Jan 18th 2009, 11:14 AM
NHL Fever... great post, you can't fault your logic. (Though I'm sure some will try.) Of course, logic ruins the joke, but I do like logic. :D

diffangle
Jan 18th 2009, 02:35 PM
You comments represent some of what I believe are common myths. Its because few actually consider the real consequences of these situations. In reality many more people would die if we did not have motorized transport, because that is part of the modern transport industry that brings vital fuel, medicines, experts, materials, and many other things that preserve life where it otherwise could not be preserved. If you just cut it off, many people would not be able to survive. Didn't think of it that way did you? Its more complicated than 'cars kill people'. Yes they do, and not having them would kill many more.

I guess you didn't understand my comment:rolleyes:, that's okay, I'll explain it to you. I wasn't saying we should outlaw cars, I was making a point that we shouldn't have to give up our arms or our cars b/c people have died as result of people behind both. Do you deny that people die as a result of driving cars? Again, I'm not saying we should outlaw cars. Also, before cars, we had exports, medicine, materials, etc. There were things like horses, camels, donkeys, other animals, and trains that were useful in hauling those things to and fro.




Point taken.....I guess it's just hard for me to understand because I've never lived in a place that allows guns, and where I am has always been very anti gun, so thats the main view I've always heard. There are always more than one way to look at things.
Do criminals not have guns there?

NHL Fever
Jan 18th 2009, 02:49 PM
I guess you didn't understand my comment:rolleyes:, that's okay, I'll explain it to you. I wasn't saying we should outlaw cars, I was making a point that we shouldn't have to give up our arms or our cars b/c people have died as result of people behind both. Do you deny that people die as a result of driving cars? Again, I'm not saying we should outlaw cars. Also, before cars, we had exports, medicine, materials, etc. There were things like horses, camels, donkeys, other animals, and trains that were useful in hauling those things to and fro.

True animals did transport things before, but they are much less effective and can carry much much less than modern cars and hauling operations. Those modern methods of transport support many more peoples lives than the older methods did. Donkeys and trains cannot support the food or medical needs for people living in places distant from the factory or the farmers field, that could otherwise not obtain those things. Sure some people could be supported just as they were many years ago, but not on the scale of population density we have now. If you converted to animals and trains tomorrow, you would have a humanitarian crisis with millions of deaths in the ensuing few weeks and months.

I understood your argument, and that's why I said its a benefit vs cost situation. While modern transport clearly has enormous benefit and a cost, the issue is weather guns have more benefit than their cost. Many, I think legitimately, believe the cost outweighs the benefit. The right to arms is possibly not worth the 3-fold higher murder rate in the states compared to all other modern nations. In other words, they take more lives than they preserve. In contrast cars and trucks preserve many more lives than they take.



Do criminals not have guns there?I can't speak for the poster you addressed this to, but the answer for the most part is....no, they don't. This reality stands opposite the cute quote 'if you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.' This does not mean that absolutely no criminals have guns, but in Canada for example, very very few do, and there are extremely few guns crimes.

The purpose of the second amendment is clearly described by your founding fathers. It was so that you were not helpless to the oppression of the crown, and so you could form a militia in your state strong enough to fend off the federal army if the central government were to impose their will on your state. Both of those reasons have been obsolete for many years, but the side-effects continue to rear their head.

diffangle
Jan 18th 2009, 03:39 PM
the issue is weather guns have more benefit than their cost.
If we didn't already have guns floating around then I could see where they may not be beneficial to have, but the reality is, they are already floating around. Now what happens when big bro wants to take peoples guns away is that the law abiding citizens turn their arms over but the criminals don't. The criminals then know their odds of being able to pull off a crime against a law abiding citizen with success is much greater b/c they know they're unarmed. How do you explain that the crime rate in Kennesaw(where gun ownership is required) is much lower than its surrounding cities?


If you converted to animals and trains tomorrow, you would have a humanitarian crisis with millions of deaths in the ensuing few weeks and months.

How about we enact driving laws comparible to the gunlaws gun banners want to enact. Let's say that vehicle ownership should only be limited to the transporters of goods... but we, the common people, shouldn't have them b/c of the risk of getting in a car wreck(with more vehicles on the road it ups our odds). The transporters can have delivery trucks come to areas to deliver the goods to people. But again, I'm not advocating the banning of cars.




I can't speak for the poster you addressed this to, but the answer for the most part is....no, they don't. This reality stands opposite the cute quote 'if you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.'

According to wiki...



In the year 2002/2003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were unregistered.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#cite_note-autogenerated1-14) In 1997-1999, more than 80% of the handguns confiscated were never legally purchased or registered in Australia.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#cite_note-mouzos00-15)

AngelAuthor
Jan 18th 2009, 08:21 PM
It was so that you were not helpless to the oppression of the crown, and so you could form a militia in your state strong enough to fend off the federal army if the central government were to impose their will on your state. Both of those reasons have been obsolete for many years,
How tragically wrong can one get??

Big T
Jan 18th 2009, 08:41 PM
And the dems are pushing for healthcare reform and want to take away guns.... :hmm:

NHL Fever
Jan 18th 2009, 08:57 PM
If we didn't already have guns floating around then I could see where they may not be beneficial to have, but the reality is, they are already floating around. Now what happens when big bro wants to take peoples guns away is that the law abiding citizens turn their arms over but the criminals don't. The criminals then know their odds of being able to pull off a crime against a law abiding citizen with success is much greater b/c they know they're unarmed. How do you explain that the crime rate in Kennesaw(where gun ownership is required) is much lower than its surrounding cities?

I understand the concept behind that gun argument, but I believe its faulty reasoning. There may indeed be a segment of the criminal population who is deterred by the knowledge of new onset gun ownership, but that is only a stopgap temporary measure, with the potential long-term consequences of excessive gun prevalence. Its therefore shortsighted, and not a real solution, although it looks great for a time and gets lots of media attention.

I can't say much about Kennesaw without seeing the various studies in detail, but I did find some limited statistics on the town so I will point out a few of them. The gun law was passed in 1983.

Burglaries
1982 (before law) - 35
1983 (after law) - 35
1986 - 70

Murders
1980 - 0
1985 - 0
1990 - 0
1995 - 0
2000 - 1
2005 - 1

Property crime
1980 - 185
1985 - 153
1990 - 302

Rape (per 100 000 people)
1980 - 39.3
1985 - 0
1990 - 67.1
1995 - 18.8

After reviewing this I would say that the numbers don't really support the pro-gun use of this town as evidence, and some of the stats are just confusing. 1980 kennesaw was a town of 6000, 8000 by 1990. In such a small town, a few incidents of crime can greatly skew any attempt at sensible interpretation of data. But it looks to me that the gun law made a temporary decrease in crime only. Its also evident that while Kennesaw had a very low crime rate after the gun law, it also had a very low crime rate before the gun law.


How about we enact driving laws comparible to the gunlaws gun banners want to enact. Let's say that vehicle ownership should only be limited to the transporters of goods... but we, the common people, shouldn't have them b/c of the risk of getting in a car wreck(with more vehicles on the road it ups our odds). The transporters can have delivery trucks come to areas to deliver the goods to people. But again, I'm not advocating the banning of cars.
I see where you're going....but you're taking one step forward and two back trying to wriggle around this hypothetical situation. If you banned common people from cars, they can't get to their jobs, that alone would have a catastrophic economic impact. If you said only transporters can bring goods to people, I can't even imagine how many more transport vehicles that would require to bring everyone their daily necessities, since nobody could get those things themselves (no car to go to the store). All you have done is replaced millions of personal vehicles with millions of transport vehicles.....still having accidents and killing people. Modern life as we know it cannot be sustained without modern transportation.



According to wiki...It makes sense that most crime-related guns will be unregistered, but that is not an argument against gun control.

Its a difficult issue, I believe the solution is to place the controls at the manufacturing level. The reality is several-fold more guns are manufactured than registered every year. This means many are not in legal hands. The manufacturers know this but don't care, because they are selling guns which is their priority. My solution is this:

1 - Abolish the manufacturing of concealable firearms except for law enforcement
2 - Let lawful people keep their current concealable firearms
3 - Any criminal offense is subject to confiscation of your weapons
4 - Destroy all weapons that get confiscated for any reason

This would accomplish several goals. Law abiding people would keep their weapons, but there would be no new guns available to purchase. Since criminals are much more likely to have their weapons confiscated, the supply in criminal hands would gradually decrease, with the supply in lawful hands staying essentially the same. After a certain point in time, old guns will cease to function and the overall prevalence of guns would decrease, except for the police. Manufacturers would no longer be able to profit from criminal gun demand. I believe the supply in lawful hands will outlast the supply in criminal hands also because responsible people are more likely to properly care for and maintain their weapons. Since many gun murders are crimes of passion + availability of firearm, the same lower-class kinds of people who are more prone to that would also be more prone to other minor criminal offenses - resulting in the loss of their guns as well and preempting many of those murders and gun-related crimes. The only loser in this scenario is the gun industry. The amount of police-intended guns that get stolen or trafficked would be exceedingly small, just as the number of police-issued weapons in criminal hands now is exceedingly small.

NHL Fever
Jan 18th 2009, 09:07 PM
How tragically wrong can one get??

Care to explain?

- You face no threat from the British Crown
- You no longer have state militias
- The national guard is utterly incapable of fending off the federal army if it came to that, and it never will be capable

Dragonfighter1
Jan 18th 2009, 11:53 PM
Angyl, NHLfever, This is looking to be a very intelligent discourse if you can avoid saying anything inflamatory to each other,

May I implore you for the sake of the fact that both of you are known to me as VERY intelligent, thinking, thoughtful, word cautious people...that the benefit of an emotion neutral debate by the two of you could be of very great use to those of us who lack your insightful judgement and wish for a more well thought out overview of the issue at hand.

Please share your wisdom with us all!

No sarcasm, I am sincerely....

The DF

AngelAuthor
Jan 19th 2009, 04:42 AM
Care to explain?

- You face no threat from the British Crown
Not specifically, but there are other government threats, specifically republicans and democrats.

- You no longer have state militiasDon't need 'em. I've always said, and I firmly believe that the one thing that would stop any country like China from taking over the U.S. (and subsequently Canada and Mexico as well) are the "redneck, gun-totin, flag-wavin' American citizens who would truly die before giving up their various arms to any government entity. These dedicated folks - numbering in the millions - are more substantial individually than any army on the face of the planet

- The national guard is utterly incapable of fending off the federal army if it came to that, and it never will be capableSee above. The national guard is not the defense against our military...WE are, and that only because we are armed, sir. See how much trouble a few thousand Al Qaeda causes the might of the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now multiply their numbers by a couple of hundred and watch the people of the United States put their own army to shame...

if it came to that... And that's assuming you could get the whole of our army to turn against the citizens of this country. My guess is that no fewer than 50% would desert and change sides...

if it came to that...

You say the threat hasn't existed for a long time, I contend, sir that the threat from government is not significant (directly) BECAUSE we are armed. Instead, the politicians, lead primarily by the left, are stripping our rights from us piece by piece instead of in one-fell swoop, as I'm sure they would if they got the chance.

And as far as statistics go, I will first point out, as I have before that comparing America socially to any other nation is comparing apples to oranges. We are the first and the oldest democratic republic in the world and though many countries have adopted a similar style of governance with an eye on democracy and "freedom", it is NOT the same thing. Your social issues are not our social issues. Our legal system is nothing like France's. Child (and future criminal) raising in the U.S. is barely comparable to raising children in Austrailia or the UK. Crime and Punishment are different between the U.S. and precisely every other nation on the face of the earth, so to try to boil down our crime rates versus any other nation's is an exercise in twisting statistics and reality to try to prove a point.

What gives us our higher crime rates than many other nations is our unique criminal/social system, and an entirely different debate than one with the simplistic attempt to pin it on gun ownership. And that rebuke goes to those here on the side of gun ownership as well who brought statistics from other nations into it. There are extremely few and narrow ways in which the United States can accurately be compared to other countries, especially when it comes to social issues.

The only apt and accurate comparisons one can make is to compare a nation to itself, as you did with the one city here in the U.S. I.E. comparing the U.K. with itself by saying that their crime rate was X before they took everyone's guns away....today it is higher than X. That's a problem. That their X today is still lower than the U.S.'s crime rate is irrelevant and not a straight comparison.

diffangle
Jan 19th 2009, 03:27 PM
If you banned common people from cars, they can't get to their jobs, that alone would have a catastrophic economic impact.
You know life existed before cars and that many people on the planet don't own a car, yet they still survive, right? People still use animals and bicycles to get around and haul stuff... heck, now that I think about it, with our obesity problems here it might actually be a really good thing for our society. :hmm:


If you said only transporters can bring goods to people, I can't even imagine how many more transport vehicles that would require to bring everyone their daily necessities, since nobody could get those things themselves (no car to go to the store).
Just like the good ol days and like what others(who don't own a car now) do, you would walk, ride your bike, or ride your animal to the general store and pick u your supplies to last you more than a day.



All you have done is replaced millions of personal vehicles with millions of transport vehicles.....still having accidents and killing people.
There would not be anymore transport vehicles on the road than what there is today, that's faulty logic. The same amount of transport vehicles that deliver to our stores today would continue to deliver to stores, why would we need more goods delivered to our stores if cars went away? No car = individuals needing more than what they sustain on now? Doesn't make sense.:confused



Modern life as we know it cannot be sustained without modern transportation.

It's amazing how little we actually need to live, and live comfortably at that. Besides, it wouldn't be so bad for us to become less materialistic.;)

awestruckchild
Jan 20th 2009, 04:17 PM
My comment is only my personal opinion I have no stats to back what I think. But I would doubt very much that because of the absence of guns crime has jumped..."severely". We now have "gangs" so I'm told, which we didn't used to have and they have their "weapons" knives or whatever...but I certainly feel perfectly safe, though of course there are areas and times that I wouldn't go to certain places.

I still think that no matter how low the death rate is from guns, it would still be a lot less if no one had them.

It is very true that the death rate from guns would be a lot lower if no one had them. In fact, if no one had them, the death rate from guns would be zero. But if we said tomorrow that no one was allowed to have a gun, law abiding citizens would comply and criminals would not. This would do nothing but make the criminals bolder in my opinion, because they would have no fear of you possibly defending yourself.

awestruckchild
Jan 20th 2009, 04:18 PM
Less people would die if we didn't have cars either. ;) The thing is, is that guns can actually save lives, as I can attest to, I had a friend who is alive today b/c of her gun. It's also telling when it became a law for every household in Kennesaw Georgia to have a gun in it and their crime rate went to almost nil and you look at some place like Chicago with some of the strictest gun control laws in the country and see how bad their crime rate is.:hmm:

Ditto with D.C. in my area.

Dragonfighter1
Jan 20th 2009, 07:02 PM
It is very true that the death rate from guns would be a lot lower if no one had them. In fact, if no one had them, the death rate from guns would be zero. But if we said tomorrow that no one was allowed to have a gun, law abiding citizens would comply and criminals would not. This would do nothing but make the criminals bolder in my opinion, because they would have no fear of you possibly defending yourself.
well put!..............

dan
Jan 24th 2009, 04:15 PM
Here's some stats for you:

Hospital Mistakes Kill 270,491 Medicare Patients in 3 Years, Cost $8.8 Billion (http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2008/8-04-08-HospitalMistakes.htm)

Doctors' mistakes kill thousands (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article5114964.ece) (Scotland)

Medical errors 'kill thousands' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/682000.stm) (UK)

Medical errors kill almost 100000 Americans a year (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1117251)


Fed: Medical mistakes kill 10,000 people a year, Choice says (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-85697104.html) Australia

System tracks gun deaths: Details are being collected on murders, suicides in (http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/09.28/firearms.html)the U.S.
By William J. Cromie
Gazette Staff

Recent accounts of young school students shooting each other has sent a shiver through the nation; journalists call the killings an "epidemic" and legislators have begun debates on new gun control laws. As tragic as these homicides are, however, they represent only the tip of an iceberg of gun deaths in the United States. Every year, more than 30,000 people are shot to death in murders, suicides, and accidents. Another 65,000 suffer from gun injuries.

"The total number of school shootings each year is typically far less than one day's toll attributable to firearms in the United States," notes David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Research and Control Center. "Defective Firestone tires may have killed 103 people over a number of years, but firearms kill about 85 people every day in this country."

I don't know...seems like neither are safe!

God bless

...That's it! I have had enough! I demand a five...no...a ten day waiting period, before you see your doctor!:rofl:

So, asking the doctors at the CDC for their assessment of the dangers of gun ownership may have been a mistake?:rolleyes:

NHL Fever
Jan 24th 2009, 06:41 PM
Not specifically, but there are other government threats, specifically republicans and democrats.
Don't need 'em. I've always said, and I firmly believe that the one thing that would stop any country like China from taking over the U.S. (and subsequently Canada and Mexico as well) are the "redneck, gun-totin, flag-wavin' American citizens who would truly die before giving up their various arms to any government entity. These dedicated folks - numbering in the millions - are more substantial individually than any army on the face of the planet
See above. The national guard is not the defense against our military...WE are, and that only because we are armed, sir. See how much trouble a few thousand Al Qaeda causes the might of the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now multiply their numbers by a couple of hundred and watch the people of the United States put their own army to shame...


I believe there is a lot of truth in that. However consider this, you would be even more likely to defend against those threats if you could purchase RPG's, drive a tank, or mount some kind of missile launcher on your house. Not to mention the proposed deterrent against regular crime. So why not? Even very pro-gun individuals will argue against that, recognizing the excessive danger in the general public having those devices. Its not about every concievable possibility, its about whether the cost outweighs the benefit in the present situation. Do very high murder rates outweigh the right to bear arms? - Arguably yes because the number of deaths from gun crime is presumably far greater than the number of deaths prevented by guns.


You say the threat hasn't existed for a long time, I contend, sir that the threat from government is not significant (directly) BECAUSE we are armed. Instead, the politicians, lead primarily by the left, are stripping our rights from us piece by piece instead of in one-fell swoop, as I'm sure they would if they got the chance.
That theory falls for 2 reasons I believe. First it implies that without guns, even modern nations would face routine significant threats from their governments. This is not the case, most modern industrial democracies have had strict gun control for some time and have never faced a significant government threat during that time. And many poorer or less developed nations with high prevalence of guns face routine threats from their governments or local authorities. Having a modern stable democracy is what removes the threat of government, not guns. Gun control coreelates strongly with modern, wealthy, stable nations. The US is the exception in that regard, and also the exception in its high murder rates.


And as far as statistics go, I will first point out, as I have before that comparing America socially to any other nation is comparing apples to oranges. We are the first and the oldest democratic republic in the world and though many countries have adopted a similar style of governance with an eye on democracy and "freedom", it is NOT the same thing. Your social issues are not our social issues. Our legal system is nothing like France's. Child (and future criminal) raising in the U.S. is barely comparable to raising children in Austrailia or the UK. Crime and Punishment are different between the U.S. and precisely every other nation on the face of the earth, so to try to boil down our crime rates versus any other nation's is an exercise in twisting statistics and reality to try to prove a point.
I agree its suboptimal to compare nations with inevitably different factors at play in their crime situations. But it is not without value, and its also the only comparison we have at a national level. I haven't been to Australia, but do understand that ultimately our cultures are very similar, more simliar than different. Canada and the US have similar types of people, same class distribution (until recently), work at the same jobs in the same industries, drive the same cars, build the same houses, wear the same clothes, watch the same TV, play the same games, and eat the same food. It is as close a comparison as one can hope for.

You are right no two nations are exactly alike. You bring up the differences of child raising and crime and punishment. What you end up saying with that, is that rather than gun control laws, those other differences are more important factors in the US higher crime rates. So the way you raise your kids, and the way you prosecute criminals is contributing to your high murder rates? Maybe you want to revise what you mean by that.

I would also point out that being the oldest democracy does not make you the best one, or the most democractic. Ford is the oldest car maker, need I say more. Its arguable that other democratic nations better reflect your founding fathers values than America does. As one example, the economist newspaper compiles an annual 'democracy index', essentially how democratic a nation is. The US finds itself 18th on the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#2008_ranking
I realize this is not the be all and end all of democracy, but if you believe the US does indeed hold a monopoly on democracy, you should explain why. The democracy index does loosely correlate to muder rates incidentally, against implying that democracy and murder are linked, not gun ownership.


The only apt and accurate comparisons one can make is to compare a nation to itself, as you did with the one city here in the U.S. I.E. comparing the U.K. with itself by saying that their crime rate was X before they took everyone's guns away....today it is higher than X. That's a problem. That their X today is still lower than the U.S.'s crime rate is irrelevant and not a straight comparison.So what do you make of my analysis of Keneesaw? It appears gun prevalence did not in fact have a lasting effect on the crime rate, in some categories it even went up. Any other internal examples you would offer for your argument?

NHL Fever
Jan 24th 2009, 07:10 PM
You know life existed before cars and that many people on the planet don't own a car, yet they still survive, right? People still use animals and bicycles to get around and haul stuff... heck, now that I think about it, with our obesity problems here it might actually be a really good thing for our society. :hmm:
[quote]
I think you're missing the big picture here. Life did exist, but not on today's scale. The reasons we can sustain such population densities is because of our modern transport networks which bring food, fuel and power to places that would otherwise not have them, or not have them in such quantities. If we lost transport, we could only sustain population densities that we did 100 years ago. That would result in massive deaths due to starvation and energy deficits.

Just like the good ol days and like what others(who don't own a car now) do, you would walk, ride your bike, or ride your animal to the general store and pick u your supplies to last you more than a day.
There would be far too many people for the general store to support, because they all used to drive to superstore for their groceries, now they are overwhelming the general store. So build a whole bunch of general stores?, now you need a whole bunch of trucks to deliver goods.


There would not be anymore transport vehicles on the road than what there is today, that's faulty logic. The same amount of transport vehicles that deliver to our stores today would continue to deliver to stores, why would we need more goods delivered to our stores if cars went away? No car = individuals needing more than what they sustain on now? Doesn't make sense.:confused
You are not thinking all the logistics through. I'm not arguing for more goods per person. Your argument would only be true, if everybody could walk or bike to the store they currently drive to. But for most people, that is far out of reasonable range. That means you need more, smaller stores spaced out more evenly across neighborhoods, near houses, literally all across the whole city (like it used to be). Without destroying large tracks of houses, you cannot build small stores with loading bays for big rigs to unload their goods. That means you would need many smaller vehicles to brings goods from a loading point (the big rig traveling cross country) to the smaller stores in the residential neighborhoods. Most American cities have been designed with sprawling suburbs composed of huge tracks of houses out of range of goods and services except by vehicle. Suddenly no personal transport, chaos.

Also consider that to walk or bike to stores and return home, means many more trips for the same amount of goods, since you no longer have your durango to load up that 25kg bag of potatoes and softener salt. That means much more time spent just gathering the goods you need to survive. That means in a family some people would need to be almost entirely dedicated to gathering and preparing those goods, it could take the whole day. Traditionally, that is the wife. So now you've dropped potentially 50% of the workforce from the economy, a devastating impact.
Basically, we've turned the clock back 50 or 100 years. Yes, life would go on, in fact people might even be happier and less indulgent. But the fact remains many would die because you cannot just sever a big chunk of the economy and hope the remainder can support the same population density.



It's amazing how little we actually need to live, and live comfortably at that. Besides, it wouldn't be so bad for us to become less materialistic.;)Well amen to that. In reality I agree that we would be better off with less cars as well, more mass transport, less non-essential consumer goods. But I'm only making the point that cars preserce more lives than they take, although its indirect.

markedward
Jan 24th 2009, 07:43 PM
Guns Don't Kill People

Doctors
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.

Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.
Statistics courtesy of FBI

So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.Just reading through this, I see how you tweaked the statistics in your favor. All you did was report the number of accidental gun deaths. How many intentional gun deaths were there?

diffangle
Jan 24th 2009, 08:13 PM
I think you're missing the big picture here. Life did exist, but not on today's scale. The reasons we can sustain such population densities is because of our modern transport networks which bring food, fuel and power to places that would otherwise not have them, or not have them in such quantities. If we lost transport, we could only sustain population densities that we did 100 years ago. That would result in massive deaths due to starvation and energy deficits.


I think you're missing the big picture. How do places like China, whose population out numbers the U.S., survive? China has a population of 1,330,044,544... much larger than the pop. of the U.S. which is 303,824,640, yet they only have 120 million vehicles verses the U.S. number of 143,781,202. If no car equals death in your estimate then why is China's population exploding(even with the one-child policy)?:hmm:



There would be far too many people for the general store to support, because they all used to drive to superstore for their groceries, now they are overwhelming the general store. So build a whole bunch of general stores?, now you need a whole bunch of trucks to deliver goods.


No, we don't need more stores/goods... we'd keep the same stores(big grocery stores and the neighborhood convienient stores) we have already with the same amount of goods that we already have.



You are not thinking all the logistics through. I'm not arguing for more goods per person. Your argument would only be true, if everybody could walk or bike to the store they currently drive to. But for most people, that is far out of reasonable range.

Okay now you're talking like a lazy person :lol:, seriously though, there are stores everywhere nowadays, even in the country, and for those who live so far away from a store that they can't either ride a bike or hitch up their horse and wagon to go get supplies... they're already used to living with less than you or I do. People that far away from a store generally live a more aguarian lifestyle... growing their own food, making their own clothes, etc(just like those surviving in the tiny mountain villages in China).


Without destroying large tracks of houses, you cannot build small stores with loading bays for big rigs to unload their goods. That means you would need many smaller vehicles to brings goods from a loading point (the big rig traveling cross country) to the smaller stores in the residential neighborhoods. Most American cities have been designed with sprawling suburbs composed of huge tracks of houses out of range of goods and services except by vehicle. Suddenly no personal transport, chaos.

I refer to my first question to you in this post.


Also consider that to walk or bike to stores and return home, means many more trips for the same amount of goods, since you no longer have your durango to load up that 25kg bag of potatoes and softener salt. That means much more time spent just gathering the goods you need to survive. That means in a family some people would need to be almost entirely dedicated to gathering and preparing those goods, it could take the whole day. Traditionally, that is the wife. So now you've dropped potentially 50% of the workforce from the economy, a devastating impact.
Basically, we've turned the clock back 50 or 100 years.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/bicycles.jpg

http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:gFI65qEKC6YRCM:http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1375/538926062_a820df2062.jpg%3Fv%3D0 (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1375/538926062_a820df2062.jpg%3Fv%3D0&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/gaetelo/538926062/&usg=__LHjsBHb0H0Dlot1Kl6Sng5Pk2xw=&h=333&w=500&sz=99&hl=en&start=128&um=1&tbnid=gFI65qEKC6YRCM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpicture%2Bof%2Bchinese%2Bon%2Bbicycle s%26start%3D126%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26r ls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7DGUS%26sa%3DN)

http://www.travelpod.com/users/chris-marianne/bigchina.1117263240.kashgar_-_donkey_cart.jpg

http://www.fishing.net.nz/asp_forums/uploads/61024/Flying_Donkey.jpg:lol:





Yes, life would go on, in fact people might even be happier and less indulgent.
Nuff said there.

NHL Fever
Jan 26th 2009, 02:34 AM
ooops double post

NHL Fever
Jan 26th 2009, 03:01 AM
I think you're missing the big picture. How do places like China, whose population out numbers the U.S., survive? China has a population of 1,330,044,544... much larger than the pop. of the U.S. which is 303,824,640, yet they only have 120 million vehicles verses the U.S. number of 143,781,202. If no car equals death in your estimate then why is China's population exploding(even with the one-child policy)?:hmm:

If you want to cut your life expectancy by 10-15 years, and have 70% of the nation live in poverty, then you're right having China's level of development would work for you. But I'm guessing you don't. That's exactly what I'm talking about, that's what would happen if you cut out all personal transport vehicles and provided nothing to to replace them in terms of goods and service delivery. You can live that way with bicycles for everybody, just like China does, you certainly cannot live like you do now, or have the luxury of life expectancy that you do. Knock off everybody over 65 or 70 in that scenario to get the approximate death total. Yes the rest would survive, mostly in poverty, but survive.

When you imagine the good old days in the US before cars, remember that 80% of the nation lived in rural areas. You have to, you literally cannot support cities of millions with those levels of industrialization.



No, we don't need more stores/goods... we'd keep the same stores(big grocery stores and the neighborhood convienient stores) we have already with the same amount of goods that we already have.
Quite untrue. The massive store with thousands of customers/day is only possible in the age of the automobile. If you removed it, far fewer people would be able to travel to those stores now out of their walking/biking range. And many who would, would have to quit their jobs to have the time to do so. The huge stores can only survive with millions of customers per month. It is not possible for that many people to live close enough to the wal-mart to reasonably make that many trips. The only places with no auto use with that many people in one place are third-world slums, in which case nobody has the money to buy the goods anyway, and the store still goes out of business.

Just do the math. Give a reasonable distance somebody could be expected to walk or bike. Then calculate the number of people living in that radius of the store. Then figure out how many customers the stores needs to survive. The answer? - a big 'out of business' sign for walmart and home depot without cars.


Okay now you're talking like a lazy person :lol:, seriously though, there are stores everywhere nowadays, even in the country, and for those who live so far away from a store that they can't either ride a bike or hitch up their horse and wagon to go get supplies... they're already used to living with less than you or I do. People that far away from a store generally live a more aguarian lifestyle... growing their own food, making their own clothes, etc(just like those surviving in the tiny mountain villages in China).
Good point, but suddenly all those local stores would be overwhelmed with customers who used to get all or at least many of their goods from the walmart and superstore 15 miles away. Now it requires 5-6 trips on the bike both ways to get the same amount you could load in the durango, and far greater amounts of physical energy. And tremendously more time to do so, requiring one person not work at another job. So you need many more smaller stores to accomodate the people who used to go to the superstores, and vehicles to bring goods to those stores. The variety of goods becomes severely reduced, as the volume of customers in a small store would be much less than a superstore.

You're right about rural people - they would be better off than the urban ones in such a situation. That's why the majority of Chinese live in rural areas, and why the majority of Americans do not. The deaths and blows to life expectancy would be mostly felt in the cities, which require modern transport to sustain population densities of those magnitudes at a level above an indian slum.

I, like yourself think it would be great for more people to bike and live more healthy. But your pictures, while real, represent people who must devote far more of their time to just surviving, and will live far shorter, and with far less opportunity for themselves or their children than you or I. Are you ok with that?

You may also be forgetting the millions who can no longer get to their jobs. So now people are forced to leave better jobs for more local ones, and half the workforce has to quit their jobs just to have the time and energy to gather the necessities of life.

The proof for all the scenarios I've provided is all around us. Just look at how other nations operate under those conditions now, or how the west used to do so. This is population geography 101. People live in the west the way they do precisely because of our ability to mobilize people and goods far further and more efficiency than people in less developed nations.

NHL Fever
Jan 26th 2009, 03:21 AM
It is very true that the death rate from guns would be a lot lower if no one had them. In fact, if no one had them, the death rate from guns would be zero. But if we said tomorrow that no one was allowed to have a gun, law abiding citizens would comply and criminals would not. This would do nothing but make the criminals bolder in my opinion, because they would have no fear of you possibly defending yourself.

See the previous posts. The evidence does not support that IMO myth, as nations with strict gun control do not in fact have that problem. If you have evidence to support that like an example, please post it.

The best policy is not based on what might happen, but what has happened in places where that policy was enacted.

awestruckchild
Jan 26th 2009, 05:06 PM
It is common sense. Predators always prey on those who they see are not able to defend themselves. I do not have any research to back up my common sense, sorry.

diffangle
Jan 27th 2009, 12:49 AM
If you want to cut your life expectancy by 10-15 years, and have 70% of the nation live in poverty, then you're right having China's level of development would work for you.

Asians have a longer life expectancy than Canadians, Americans, and Brits. :hmm:


Good point, but suddenly all those local stores would be overwhelmed with customers who used to get all or at least many of their goods from the walmart and superstore 15 miles away
Yea, then local business can expand instead of getting forced out of business by big corporations. I see that as a positive thing. Before you say that will require more trucks, it won't b/c they'll take the place of all those trucks from the suppossed out of business Wal-Mart you described.


Now it requires 5-6 trips on the bike both ways to get the same amount you could load in the durango,
Naw, you just figure out that you don't really need another ipod, television, a 10th pair of Nike's, every trendy item, etc. to live.


and far greater amounts of physical energy.
You mean a nation of unhealthy and obese people might actually lose weight b/c they now have to expend some physical energy... the horror.


And tremendously more time to do so, requiring one person not work at another job.
There's not too many places that have stores that far away from them that it would require an all day event. Even if that was required then you'd have families spending more quality time together than you do today... children interacting with/helping their parents instead of everyone going off into their seperate bedrooms to play on their computers or zoning out in front of the tv.


So you need many more smaller stores to accomodate the people who used to go to the superstores, and vehicles to bring goods to those stores.
You won't have more vehicles on the road, the trucks that once delivered to Wally world will now be available to deliver goods to Joe Schmoe who owns the local store and has to expand. It's a redistrubution thing.

Matthew
Jan 27th 2009, 03:25 AM
The OP is kind of an amusing stat, but shouldn't be taken seriously. As NHL pointed out, it's a bit illogical.

As for gun ownership in the US, you can discuss costs/benefits and the likelihood of needing to or being able to stand up against our government, but it doesn't really matter unless you have the support to amend the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is not obsolete by any means. The Supreme Court addressed this during this past Summer. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/

I think stats are pretty clear that Americans are more violent than other countries. I'm not sure why. I looked up some stats. Here is a reference page: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html

I was surprised by the racial stats. I knew there was a disparity but I didn't know it was like this. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

dan
Jan 27th 2009, 06:36 PM
See the previous posts. The evidence does not support that IMO myth, as nations with strict gun control do not in fact have that problem. If you have evidence to support that like an example, please post it.

The best policy is not based on what might happen, but what has happened in places where that policy was enacted.

...You people not read books or maybe, you just ignore those about gun control?
I remember reading about a man in Joliet Federal Penitentiary building a fully functional semi auto pistol and ammo, inside the prison, then using it in an escape attempt. Using that as an example, who can stop anyone from obtaining a firearm?

Also, anyone who has seen an armed robber run away, when you pull your own gun, will never want it any other way.:lol:

Here's your reading list:

Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America by Gary Kleck (actual research)

"Criminals are certain of their ability to obtain firearms in spite of government prohibitions."

Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control by Gary Kleck and Don B. Kates

Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Social Institutions and Social Change) by Gary Kleck

The illegitimacy of one-sided speculation: getting the defensive gun use estimate down. (response to article by David Hemenway in this issue, p. 1430): ... Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by Gary Kleck

There Are No Lessons to Be Learned from Littleton.: An article from: Criminal Justice Ethics by Gary Kleck

Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms. James D. Wright and Peter Rossi (actual research)

The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong by John R. Lott

Straight Shooting: Firearms, Economics and Public Policy by John R. Lott

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws by John R. Lott Jr. (actual research)

Hobbes91
Jan 28th 2009, 03:41 AM
Here's another thing to add to the topic of medicine. Medical advances in the past 100 years have only contributed 2% to the increased lifespan of humans in developed countries. The primary source for humans living longer is refined hygenic practices and following are better diets and better exercise. With billions of tax payer dollars being poured into "scientific research" and not much to show for it, I think it's time people more people start seeing big medicine for what it is....

Drug-free is the life for me. :)

dan
Jan 28th 2009, 01:34 PM
...A few more:

"Death By Gun Control: The Human Cost Of Victim Disarmament", By Aaron Zelman

"Armed America: The Remarkable Story Of How Guns Became As American As Apple Pie", By Clayton Cramer

"The Global War On Your Guns" By Wayne LaPierre

And, just for fun, check out Robert Boatman, an advocate for concealed carry:

http://www.ironwordranch.com/

diffangle
Jan 28th 2009, 02:10 PM
Here's another thing to add to the topic of medicine. Medical advances in the past 100 years have only contributed 2% to the increased lifespan of humans in developed countries. The primary source for humans living longer is refined hygenic practices and following are better diets and better exercise.
You're right, a good book/study that shows this is The China Study by Dr. Colin T. Campbell. It's the mose extensive study ever done that shows the relation of diet, sanitation, and disease.



With billions of tax payer dollars being poured into "scientific research" and not much to show for it, I think it's time people more people start seeing big medicine for what it is....

Drug-free is the life for me. :)

Yeah but sadly it won't happen, the pharma cartel has way too much power and money to let "people start seeing". Sadly, drugs can never truely heal a disease, they may mask the problem usually while creating another one elsewhere(as we can see by the amount of deaths related to drugs)... we don't get sick b/c our bodies have drug-deficiencies.

Dragonfighter1
Jan 29th 2009, 12:58 PM
From the Coulter web site....


When Gov. David Paterson ended the Kennedy soap opera by appointing Democratic congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand, her Democratic colleague, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, blanketed the airwaves, threatening to challenge Gillibrand in the next election because of her NRA-approved stand on guns.

McCarthy explained, "My voice is for the victims."

The only reason McCarthy was elected to Congress in the first place is that her husband and son were shot by a crazed gunman on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993. Colin Ferguson's shooting spree wasn't stopped sooner because none of the passengers had guns. As has been demonstrated beyond dispute at this point, armed citizens save lives.

In a comprehensive study of all public multiple shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that the only public policy that reduced both the incidence and casualties of such shootings were concealed-carry laws. Not only are there 60 percent fewer gun massacres after states adopt concealed-carry laws, but the death and injury rate of such rampages are reduced by 80 percent.

Rep. McCarthy claims to "speak for the victims" by promoting policies that will provably create a lot more victims

NHL Fever
Feb 10th 2009, 11:18 PM
It is common sense. Predators always prey on those who they see are not able to defend themselves. I do not have any research to back up my common sense, sorry.

Common sense can mean anything, its completely relative. It was once common sense that black people were less than white people, it no longer is. Its now common sense to wash hands between patients, in the past it was common sense that you did not have to.


Asians have a longer life expectancy than Canadians, Americans, and Brits. :hmm:
The life expectancy in China, the nation of which we are comparing, is roughly 10 years shorter than the US. The difference is much greater in areas which are non-industrialized, and do not have modern systems of transport. As China has industrialized, its life expectancy has increased dramatically in the last 20 years. This is consistent with all nations who have undergone the same process. Japan which is highly industrialized, has a life expectancy about 12 years longer than China.



Yea, then local business can expand instead of getting forced out of business by big corporations. I see that as a positive thing. Before you say that will require more trucks, it won't b/c they'll take the place of all those trucks from the suppossed out of business Wal-Mart you described. No they won't, because those are big rigs than require docking bays that only the big stores have. You cannot unload the 18-wheeler down at the corner store. To realistically drop good at many smaller stores, you need many smaller trucks if you want any chance at supplying the same demand as presently.


Naw, you just figure out that you don't really need another ipod, television, a 10th pair of Nike's, every trendy item, etc. to live.
Well can't argue with that on principle. But the truth is that millions of jobs are dependent on those kinds of demands. When you cut them, you cut the jobs, and down goes the economy.


You mean a nation of unhealthy and obese people might actually lose weight b/c they now have to expend some physical energy... the horror.
Yes, and that sounds good to you and me. But unfortunately the same would apply to food and medicines. Old or disabled people who can afford but not physically obtain those things would die, and lifespans would drop. And that's exactly what we see in China, referring back to that example. However as China advances, and its roads fill with vehicles, its lifespan is also increasing. It makes sense, its typical and predictable, and its happened countless times already all over the world in modern history.



There's not too many places that have stores that far away from them that it would require an all day event. Even if that was required then you'd have families spending more quality time together than you do today... children interacting with/helping their parents instead of everyone going off into their seperate bedrooms to play on their computers or zoning out in front of the tv.
Generations ago families were indeed much closer, and people were not as lazy and obese. And lifespans were also shorter. That is the tradeoff, as we see by example after example of real life and history. Maybe its worth it, but whether or not it is, it would cause an economic implosion.


You won't have more vehicles on the road, the trucks that once delivered to Wally world will now be available to deliver goods to Joe Schmoe who owns the local store and has to expand. It's a redistrubution thing.See above. It would be impossibly inefficient to try unloading the rig at every store. You would have to root through the whole load, possibly unloading half the truck every time (and then re-loading), just to find what you want for each store. That would take forever, and is not realistic considering time and cost. That's why its not done that way for small stores today, because that way does not work. The big trucks which go cross-country unload at the big stores. For the smaller stores, big trucks off-load at some point of trade, and smaller trucks are loaded up to go to the smaller stores. Sometimes this involves several or many levels of loading/offloading. This is how every major distribution network functions, from the postal service to 7/11. Because removing cars would create a sudden need for many more closer, smaller stores, they would need to be supplied the same way they are now, and this would require many smaller trucks out of sheer practicality to accommodate all the new stores, and the increased traffic to the existing local stores.

NHL Fever
Feb 10th 2009, 11:46 PM
Double post.


.........................

NHL Fever
Feb 10th 2009, 11:54 PM
...You people not read books or maybe, you just ignore those about gun control?
I remember reading about a man in Joliet Federal Penitentiary building a fully functional semi auto pistol and ammo, inside the prison, then using it in an escape attempt. Using that as an example, who can stop anyone from obtaining a firearm?

Those kinds of freak random events ignore that we have a real-life, actual model to observe right now - in nations with strict gun control, that kind of event is not happening frequently if ever, and is posing no danger to the public. The lack of firearms is also posing little danger, as the crime rates and especially the murder rate, are substantially lower than the US.

Either Americans are inherently, perhaps genetically, less able to use higher reasoning and more prone to animal-like instincts leading to more crime, or its because of the guns. I reject assumptions of inherent American inferiority or stupidity because that's racist and illogical.



Here's your reading list:
Posting a torrent of info with no explanation is unhelpful. If you want an honest discussion however, give a few specific points from one of your favorite books and why you support them.

diffangle
Feb 11th 2009, 02:45 AM
The life expectancy in China, the nation of which we are comparing, is roughly 10 years shorter than the US. The difference is much greater in areas which are non-industrialized, and do not have modern systems of transport. As China has industrialized, its life expectancy has increased dramatically in the last 20 years. This is consistent with all nations who have undergone the same process. Japan which is highly industrialized, has a life expectancy about 12 years longer than China.


Sorry but industrialization is not necessarily a life extender, I suggest checking out The China Project by Dr. Colin T. Campbell. He did the most extensive study on the connection between diet and disease. He found that Asians living in the industrialized areas of China suffered with all the same diseases us Westerners suffer with(heart disease, cancers, strokes, arthritis, diabetes, etc), whereas Asians living in the rural/poorer areas didn't suffer with those things, their problem was lack of cleanliness/sanitation so they suffered with bacterial infections. Another people who proves that industrialization is not the life extender you might think it is are the Hunzas, they live far from civilization/industrialization...

http://longevity.about.com/od/longevitylegends/p/hunza.htm



How Did They Keep Free from Illness?: In short, exercise (http://longevity.about.com/od/lifelongfitness/Lifelong_Fitness.htm). The mountains that the Hunza live in are extremely rough terrain and the Hunza people spend their lives moving among the rough passages and steep ridges. They are said to be more hardy than even the famous Sherpa people of the Himalayan region.


What About Their Diet?:
Mostly plants, eaten raw. The Hunza do not have access to a large amount of fuel for cooking food, nor are there many animals available for eating, so they plant what they can and gather the rest. Apricots, cherries, grapes, plums and peaches are all cultivated by the Hunza. They also eat a lot of grains -- wheat, barley, and millet.



I realize this is wiki but for whatever it's worth, here's what wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy)says about industrialization and life expectancy...

Life expectancy may also be reduced for people exposed to high levels of highway air pollution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadway_air_dispersion_model)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] or industrial air pollution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution).

bdh
Feb 11th 2009, 07:29 AM
Guns Don't Kill People

Doctors
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.

Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.
Statistics courtesy of FBI

So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. You left out a point (D) under doctors and consequently your math is way off:

(D) Over 50% of people get a sudden heart attack when receiving their doctors bill. Of these, less than 50% survive.

dan
Feb 11th 2009, 10:51 AM
Those kinds of freak random events ignore that we have a real-life, actual model to observe right now - in nations with strict gun control, that kind of event is not happening frequently if ever, and is posing no danger to the public. The lack of firearms is also posing little danger, as the crime rates and especially the murder rate, are substantially lower than the US.

...I don't base my beliefs on "feelings", I base them on possibilities.

Anyone can make a gun. Materials, tools, and desire are the only requirements.
Also, if the studies are right, and I believe they are, the US citizen uses guns to stop crime three times more often than the criminals use them to cause crime. That could mean a quadruple of the present crime rate, if guns were to disappear.

It appears that the increase in firearms has not increased the crime rate, either. The BATFE says the US has doubled it's private ownership of firearms and the crime rate continues to decline.


Either Americans are inherently, perhaps genetically, less able to use higher reasoning and more prone to animal-like instincts leading to more crime, or its because of the guns. I reject assumptions of inherent American inferiority or stupidity because that's racist and illogical.

The richest nation in the world is bound to attract more criminals. We have more that is worth stealing.:lol:


Posting a torrent of info with no explanation is unhelpful. If you want an honest discussion however, give a few specific points from one of your favorite books and why you support them.

The research speaks for itself to people that wish to read it.

I support carrying a gun because I've done it for 35 years. I know how bad the bad guys are and I've seen them run from me. It's really neat!:rofl:

Also, I believe that God requires it:

LK 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.

MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

LK 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

REV 18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

NHL Fever
Feb 25th 2009, 02:04 AM
Sorry but industrialization is not necessarily a life extender, I suggest checking out The China Project by Dr. Colin T. Campbell. He did the most extensive study on the connection between diet and disease. He found that Asians living in the industrialized areas of China suffered with all the same diseases us Westerners suffer with(heart disease, cancers, strokes, arthritis, diabetes, etc), whereas Asians living in the rural/poorer areas didn't suffer with those things, their problem was lack of cleanliness/sanitation so they suffered with bacterial infections. Another people who proves that industrialization is not the life extender you might think it is are the Hunzas, they live far from civilization/industrialization...

http://longevity.about.com/od/longevitylegends/p/hunza.htm


I don't know why its a shock that living older means you get more diseases. Did that author fail to point out that the infectious diseases kill the rural chinese much earlier than the chronic diseases kill the industrialized chineses? The Industrialized ones live longer. 80 years olds get more chronic disease than 65 year olds, that's not shocking. Saying industrizliation is bad on that basis if like saying washing your hands is bad because although you don't spread disease, you get dried out hands. Yes, everything has a side effect. It is a fact that industrialization is a life extender.

That hunza article itslef admits it has no clue how old those people are, so it ultimately makes no point.


I realize this is wiki but for whatever it's worth, here's what wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy)says about industrialization and life expectancy...

That article states that life expectancy increased dramatically during the inductrial revolution, the percentage of deaths before age 5 went from 75% to 30%, and the life expectancy in the US increased more than thirty years. My guess is you were hanging your hat on the one line about air pollution and how it "may" lower life expectancy. No doubt it may, but by how much? And is it really air pollution, or other factors than come with air pollution (likely better paying more stressful job in urban setting, etc), we have no idea. In any case, you still would live much longer than the person who does not have access to industry.

None of this should come as a surprise to anyone who's aware of things. We live longer now than 100 years ago. Industrialization is what happened to produce that. For thousands of years after bible times until now, we lived short lives. Its not a coincidence. This is common knowledge.

This isn't about industrialization per se, but about cars and transportation. Industrialization itself cannot occur without transport, and its benefits cannot be reaped without transport. You need food, medicines, supplies, etc to survive and thrive. Concentrated areas can today support far more people than they previously could because of modern transport networks which are the direct result of and contributor to industrialization.

The benefits of automotive transport far, far outweigh the costs. The rapid ability to gather food, transport personal goods, obtain medicines, go to distant and expert physicians, rush your wife to the hospital, get yourself to that better-paying job, access better education for your family, relocate easily, etc are a tiny list of what this does for you. This is why comparing deaths by car to deaths by gun is an absurd argument. Other nations without cars currently function at a far lower standard of living, other nations without guns such as canada currently function the same or better.

NHL Fever
Feb 25th 2009, 02:32 AM
...I don't base my beliefs on "feelings", I base them on possibilities.
Anyone can make a gun. Materials, tools, and desire are the only requirements.

But yet, in Canada where weapons are controlled, they are not making them. This disproves your theory. Why are guns not being home made here in any significant amount? Why are people not killing at the same rate as in the US?

Its possible that an army of zombies may rise up to consume you. Therefore you should devote your energies to anti-zombie mechanisms. Better than feelings or possibilities is evidence. The evidence of many nations around the world is available.


Also, if the studies are right, and I believe they are, the US citizen uses guns to stop crime three times more often than the criminals use them to cause crime. That could mean a quadruple of the present crime rate, if guns were to disappear.

It appears that the increase in firearms has not increased the crime rate, either. The BATFE says the US has doubled it's private ownership of firearms and the crime rate continues to decline.

Which studies? You haven't specified any studies yet to substantiate that claim, so as of yet no it does not appear that way. Perhaps you can make it appear that way with some effort.


The richest nation in the world is bound to attract more criminals. We have more that is worth stealing.:lol:

Canada has a higher per person income than the US, as do several nations. That explanation is inadequate.


The research speaks for itself to people that wish to read it.

I see, you don't want to do any work to explain your point of view, just post a moutain of titles. In that case, please read all the anti-gun literature ever written and get back to me about why its wrong. That is, for people that wish to read it.

If you want a legit discussion, than do some footwork yourself.


Also, I believe that God requires it:

LK 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.

MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

LK 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

REV 18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

All taken out of context, not a single one speaking specifically about guns, which is the subject. It bears mention that when Jesus talks about the sword, the disciples then say they have two swords. Jesus says that is enough. So clearly two swords is not enough for 12 disciples to defend themselves with. Conclusion - Jesus was talking about something greater, just he like always is.

Clavicula_Nox
Feb 25th 2009, 03:56 AM
But yet, in Canada where weapons are controlled, they are not making them. This disproves your theory. Why are guns not being home made here in any significant amount? Why are people not killing at the same rate as in the US?

Its possible that an army of zombies may rise up to consume you. Therefore you should devote your energies to anti-zombie mechanisms. Better than feelings or possibilities is evidence. The evidence of many nations around the world is available.

Which studies? You haven't specified any studies yet to substantiate that claim, so as of yet no it does not appear that way. Perhaps you can make it appear that way with some effort.

Canada has a higher per person income than the US, as do several nations. That explanation is inadequate.

I see, you don't want to do any work to explain your point of view, just post a moutain of titles. In that case, please read all the anti-gun literature ever written and get back to me about why its wrong. That is, for people that wish to read it.

If you want a legit discussion, than do some footwork yourself.


All taken out of context, not a single one speaking specifically about guns, which is the subject. It bears mention that when Jesus talks about the sword, the disciples then say they have two swords. Jesus says that is enough. So clearly two swords is not enough for 12 disciples to defend themselves with. Conclusion - Jesus was talking about something greater, just he like always is.

I dunno, swords are expensive. To give you an example, whenever a big horde of Viking Age era stuff, or burial mounds are located, we find that warriors are buried with their weapons, which gives the historian an idea of what was common and what wasn't. The ratio of swords to spears is somewhere around 11:100, and this is in a group of people who's existence was build upon raiding, thievery, invasion, and fighting. Sure, there is a separation in the time, but I believe the smithing capabilities of Viking Age era smiths was equal to that of Jesus' period.

I'm completely speculating, but maybe saying "2 is enough" is just the same as saying "2 is enough because we're flat broke and can't buy any more"

Clavicula_Nox
Feb 25th 2009, 04:04 AM
Also, I want to put something forward.


Is it the availability of guns that is the killer? Or is it the social immaturity we have fallen to combined with the availability of guns?

I'm sure you'll agree, NHL, that it is medical advances that are keeping our murder rate down; and that a truer guideline is the rise of Aggravated Assaults, rather than the decline of murders.

I don't think the gun is to blame here, after all, these things have been around for quite some time, and only recently have they become a problem.

dan
Feb 25th 2009, 07:49 AM
But yet, in Canada where weapons are controlled, they are not making them. This disproves your theory. Why are guns not being home made here in any significant amount?

Not at all.

The Pakistanis denied making weapons for the Afghans during the Russian Conflict, until 60 Minutes put it on TV.:lol:

The likelihood of your government admitting, ever, that zip guns or high quality guns are being made in Canada, by unauthorized persons, is very remote.

Does your government ban books? US Army Technical Manual TM31-20 Improvised Munitions tells anyone interested how to make guns, explosives, detonators, fuse, and I think some other items. For entertainment or identification purposes only, of course.


Its possible that an army of zombies may rise up to consume you. Therefore you should devote your energies to anti-zombie mechanisms. Better than feelings or possibilities is evidence. The evidence of many nations around the world is available.

As a doctor, you should know better. According to several popular films (Night Of The Living Dead, Resident Evil, etc.) the gun, and lots of ammo, is the solution.:rofl:


Which studies? You haven't specified any studies yet to substantiate that claim, so as of yet no it does not appear that way. Perhaps you can make it appear that way with some effort.

Studies? The BATFE is the agency of the US Government that counts the number of guns that are manufactured, distributed and sold, (legally and illegally) in this country, every year. It's one of the things they do, all the time.


Canada has a higher per person income than the US, as do several nations. That explanation is inadequate.

I believe that explanation needs explaining as well.

GDP is the accepted measure of wealth. The US is number one, Canada is thirteenth. Truth be told, California, alone, is sixth in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)


I see, you don't want to do any work to explain your point of view, just post a moutain of titles. In that case, please read all the anti-gun literature ever written and get back to me about why its wrong. That is, for people that wish to read it.

If you want a legit discussion, than do some footwork yourself.

Do you have any experience carrying a gun? I do. Thirty five years of watching the bad guys run away. Just like those studies say they will.

The PHD's that write these books all used to be enthusiastic gun controllers. If I recall correctly, Donald Kates was a tenured professor in UC Berkley's School Of Design, before getting a second PHD in Sociology.

The studies confirm what I've lived. Since you will never get any experience, I thought you would have a better frame of reference with an academic that used to be like you are now.:idea:

You don't have a reading list for me?:rolleyes:


All taken out of context, not a single one speaking specifically about guns, which is the subject. It bears mention that when Jesus talks about the sword, the disciples then say they have two swords. Jesus says that is enough. So clearly two swords is not enough for 12 disciples to defend themselves with. Conclusion - Jesus was talking about something greater, just he like always is.

Of what context do you speak?

Weapons are weapons. The purpose of the short sword is the same as today's handgun. A rifle's purpose today was performed by the long bow in times past.

For Jesus to bring an anachronistic concept into His Time would have been improper. Faith would not be as necessary.

If you cannot understand the relationship between the sword and the handgun, I don't know what to say to you.

Just like a single handgun, in the hands of a tactically competent person , can be expected to stop four or five terrorists using AK's and grenades, two swords used with good tactics, can save twelve men from a bunch of trouble.

I found this out from the Jerusalem Post interview with Jerusalem's Police Chief, in a December 2000 issue. Armed civilians, concealed weapons, and good training did the trick-26 times!

Master Jake
Feb 25th 2009, 11:08 AM
Guns Don't Kill People

If you are injured by the wedgie- DO NOT SEE A DOCTOR!
Just shoot yourself instead...its just as effective and a whole lot cheaper!

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!! :rofl::rofl::rofl:

NHL Fever
Feb 27th 2009, 02:07 AM
I dunno, swords are expensive. To give you an example, whenever a big horde of Viking Age era stuff, or burial mounds are located, we find that warriors are buried with their weapons, which gives the historian an idea of what was common and what wasn't. The ratio of swords to spears is somewhere around 11:100, and this is in a group of people who's existence was build upon raiding, thievery, invasion, and fighting. Sure, there is a separation in the time, but I believe the smithing capabilities of Viking Age era smiths was equal to that of Jesus' period.

I'm completely speculating, but maybe saying "2 is enough" is just the same as saying "2 is enough because we're flat broke and can't buy any more"
There's no evidence or compelling reason to think cost was the issue. They did not have to pay for the two they had. Jesus said to sell things to buy swords, implying by selling those things they could indeed buy swords. Jesus said to feed 5000 with 2 loaves and 5 fish and it happened, but now he can't get more than 2 swords when he proclaims the same? He finds his pockets sheckel-less and decides to scale-down his command? After all those times of speaking unto far grandeur things and in metaphors, do you really think price-tag was what he was commenting on here?


Also, I want to put something forward.

Is it the availability of guns that is the killer? Or is it the social immaturity we have fallen to combined with the availability of guns?

I think you are right, and that's exactly what I'm trying to point out. There is a great difference evidently between social immaturity with minimal guns, compared to social immaturity with guns. The difference is about 3-4 fold in murders. Murders are largely between people who know each other. Anger, passion and guns means a lot more killing than anger, passion and not guns. Guns kill much more effectively than other weapons.


I'm sure you'll agree, NHL, that it is medical advances that are keeping our murder rate down; and that a truer guideline is the rise of Aggravated Assaults, rather than the decline of murders.

I don't think the gun is to blame here, after all, these things have been around for quite some time, and only recently have they become a problem.
Assaults per capita are also higher in the US. Even if they were lower, that would indicate that gun control translates murders into assaults, which would be a step in the right direction.

Which things are you referring to that have only recently become a problem?

If its the people, not the guns that create the damage, then should we all be able to own tanks or put landmines on our property? If not, why not.




Not at all.
The Pakistanis denied making weapons for the Afghans during the Russian Conflict, until 60 Minutes put it on TV.:lol:

The likelihood of your government admitting, ever, that zip guns or high quality guns are being made in Canada, by unauthorized persons, is very remote.
Why?

And why does it matter? The fact that there are so few crimes with guns indicates there are few guns, if we assume its the criminals who make the guns.

How does Pakistan have even the slightest relevance?



Does your government ban books? US Army Technical Manual TM31-20 Improvised Munitions tells anyone interested how to make guns, explosives, detonators, fuse, and I think some other items. For entertainment or identification purposes only, of course. But yet, people are not making them here in any significant amount here. Despite the books. That's why books don't translate into increase murders, but guns do.


As a doctor, you should know better. According to several popular films (Night Of The Living Dead, Resident Evil, etc.) the gun, and lots of ammo, is the solution.:rofl:
Sorry haven't treated enough zombie bites.



Studies? The BATFE is the agency of the US Government that counts the number of guns that are manufactured, distributed and sold, (legally and illegally) in this country, every year. It's one of the things they do, all the time.
How does that support your point of view?

What I'm asking you is for some evidence that say for example, concealed carry has more benefits than costs.


GDP is the accepted measure of wealth. The US is number one, Canada is thirteenth. Truth be told, California, alone, is sixth in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP))
There are multiple flaws with what you're trying to say here.
1) If you're talking petty crime or murder, the total wealth of a nation could not possibly be more irrelevant to a criminal. What matters to them as a target is the wealth they can access, meaning wealth per household or area.
2) Wealthier areas universally have lower crime rates than poorer ones.
3) GDP per person is a far more accurate measure of standard of living or individual financial stability, and median wage is even better.
4) Apply your theory locally. You are saying that the richest area of your city would have the most criminals. You and I both know that its the opposite.


Do you have any experience carrying a gun? I do. Thirty five years of watching the bad guys run away. Just like those studies say they will. You personal experience is an anecdote, not evidence. Some guy comes along and tells you he's never been victimized because he carries no gun. Both are equally meaningless when it comes to evaluating statistics or policy.


The PHD's that write these books all used to be enthusiastic gun controllers. If I recall correctly, Donald Kates was a tenured professor in UC Berkley's School Of Design, before getting a second PHD in Sociology.

The studies confirm what I've lived. Since you will never get any experience, I thought you would have a better frame of reference with an academic that used to be like you are now.
"Look that guy says it" is not a point. Maybe you can make one by explaining what exactly he's saying, and why you agree with it.


Of what context do you speak?

Weapons are weapons. The purpose of the short sword is the same as today's handgun. A rifle's purpose today was performed by the long bow in times past.
But yet, with all those other weapons legally available in Canada except guns, murder rates are 3-4 times lower in Canada than the states.


For Jesus to bring an anachronistic concept into His Time would have been improper. Faith would not be as necessary.
The point is not the object, but the fact that to the literal interpreter he was saying 2 swords was enough for his entire group.


If you cannot understand the relationship between the sword and the handgun, I don't know what to say to you.
I understand it. With swords, knives, bats, blunt object etc, you kill much less effectively than guns. That is the relationship. That's why soldiers carry guns into war and not clubs. If it's the person, and not the weapon that makes the difference, then we should issue soldiers swords because its cheaper.


Just like a single handgun, in the hands of a tactically competent person , can be expected to stop four or five terrorists using AK's and grenades, two swords used with good tactics, can save twelve men from a bunch of trouble.
Let me get this straight. Not only are you saying that 12 laborers who've spent the last few years with Christ are going to fend off Roman soldiers with 2 swords for the group, but also that Jesus was specifically planning for that by limiting them to 2 swords, and further that rather than some kind of spiritual lesson like all his other episodes, Christ broke from this pattern to specifically make a logistical comment, the only one by Christ to make it into scripture? Oh not to mention that Christ had some training regiment in mind in order for those disciples to gain the required action-movie type skills to dispatch all their potential foes with the 2 swords.


I found this out from the Jerusalem Post interview with Jerusalem's Police Chief, in a December 2000 issue. Armed civilians, concealed weapons, and good training did the trick-26 times!Jerusalem is quite different, since virtually the entire population has military training and experience with terrorists.

Clavicula_Nox
Feb 27th 2009, 03:33 AM
There's no evidence or compelling reason to think cost was the issue. They did not have to pay for the two they had. Jesus said to sell things to buy swords, implying by selling those things they could indeed buy swords. Jesus said to feed 5000 with 2 loaves and 5 fish and it happened, but now he can't get more than 2 swords when he proclaims the same? He finds his pockets sheckel-less and decides to scale-down his command? After all those times of speaking unto far grandeur things and in metaphors, do you really think price-tag was what he was commenting on here? No, I was just speculating; though I would not think a cloak = sword, unless it's one excellent piece of finery. But that's besides the point, I was just attempting to present an alternative reasoning.





I think you are right, and that's exactly what I'm trying to point out. There is a great difference evidently between social immaturity with minimal guns, compared to social immaturity with guns. The difference is about 3-4 fold in murders. Murders are largely between people who know each other. Anger, passion and guns means a lot more killing than anger, passion and not guns. Guns kill much more effectively than other weapons.
Assaults per capita are also higher in the US. Even if they were lower, that would indicate that gun control translates murders into assaults, which would be a step in the right direction.Sure, a person can only be betrayed by a close associate. That is why those of us who are against gun control almost obsessively preach responsibility and education. I disagree with the control, but I understand the need, if that makes sense.



Which things are you referring to that have only recently become a problem?

If its the people, not the guns that create the damage, then should we all be able to own tanks or put landmines on our property? If not, why not.There is wisdom in the saying: "The Sword itself compels to violence." But there is also wisdom in "The Sword can only cut; it is a strong arm; a hard heart; and hatred that kills"

Recent problems:

"Recent" meaning the last hundred years, or so. I'm talking about the rise of "gangster" culture in America. I define "Gangster Culture" as being a Romanticized view of criminals and criminal activity. We saw this during Prohibition when murderers and thieves were hailed as heroes who fought the evil government who stole our booze. We see this in the rise of street gangs in the 1950's, biker gangs in the 70's, and now a resurgence of street gangs and the extreme glorification of violence, murder, and whatever else flooding us in rap.

All of these things have psychological consequences, such as the de-sensitizing ourselves to death and eroding our empathy with the plight of others. I don't know if this is a problem in Canada, or even if it's a big problem in America, but in my neighborhood; everyone keeps to themselves. There is no neighborhly atmosphere; every house is it's own bastion, a fortress against the darkness.

In Meditations 15 John Donne wrote that "No man is an island unto himself..." but more and more we are watching our neighbors disconnect and become strangers. As we become stranger and stranger to each other, it becomes easier and easier to brutalize each other.

Add de-sensitization to de-humanization, and in the future when we have natural resource wars, and you have suffering on an unimaginable scale.


The gun merely gives an easy and lazy outlet; it is the person who kills.

dan
Mar 1st 2009, 02:35 AM
Why?

Denying a problem, when it's small, will stop some gullible press from advertising it, making it big. Or, if a government controls the press, you'll never see any problems they deem unnecessary.


And why does it matter? The fact that there are so few crimes with guns indicates there are few guns, if we assume its the criminals who make the guns.

In Canada, today, maybe it doesn't. Necessity is the mother of invention. In the US, one of those studies says, that the concealed carry activities are thwarting a quadrupling of the crime rate.

In London, The Times headline in 2001 stated "Crime Triples In Four Years", after outlawing self-defense.

Are you still allowed to kill in self-defense, in Canada?


How does Pakistan have even the slightest relevance?

The arms merchants were manufacturing guns in a facility reminiscent of an old west blacksmith shop. The weapons were high quality replicas of modern weapons, and you could get virtually anything. A gun controller's nightmare. :lol:


But yet, people are not making them here in any significant amount here. Despite the books. That's why books don't translate into increase murders, but guns do.

Not true. Guns don't make a murderer.

I remember a certain murder where a man inflicted an unsurvivable wound on a person with one move, with a knife, in less than a second. Contrast that with two criminals starting running gun battles with police and, after about an hour each, they succumbed to their wounds. One had 35 bullets in him, the other 42.


Sorry haven't treated enough zombie bites.

You started it.:D


How does that support your point of view?

What I'm asking you is for some evidence that say for example, concealed carry has more benefits than costs.

Well, the studies say it's obviously highly beneficial. I would add that there isn't an honest study that contradicts that statement. The government is silent. Of course, now that an obviously anti-gun president is in office, that will change. Many police officers agree that CCW is highly beneficial.

Upon witnessing a man yelling at a woman and pushing her into a van, a passerby tried to be a Good Samaritan. Police say he asked the woman if she was okay and told her she didn’t have to get into the man’s vehicle. While stopped at a traffic light moments later, the van’s driver confronted the man. Both men exited their vehicles, and the van’s driver knocked the Good Samaritan to the ground. Two women, including the woman the victim tried to help, exited the van and began stomping on him. A passing motorist witnessed the scene and quickly stopped. He drew a firearm and ordered the three suspects to halt the beating. Police received reports of a man holding people at gunpoint, but quickly determined he had a concealed carry permit and arrested the three suspects. (Ann Arbor News, Ann Arbor, MI, 02/14/08)

It was a terrifying night that refused to end. Edith and William Stevens, both in their 80s, had already scared away an intruder. According to the sheriff’s department, deputies completed an investigation and left, but two hours later the couple heard gunshots outside their home and glass breaking. William got his handgun and investigated. Finding an intruder in the hallway, he opened fire and the intruder returned it. “Had Mr. Stevens not had that handgun, I don’t know what could have happened,” said Maury County, Tenn., Chief Deputy Ashley Brown. The couple locked themselves in the bedroom and tried to phone police, but the lines were cut. The intruder, who police believe was after money for drugs, fired once more through a window. After discovering the intruder had fled, the couple phoned police from a neighbor’s house. (The Daily Herald, Columbia, TN, 02/10/08)


There are multiple flaws with what you're trying to say here.
1) If you're talking petty crime or murder, the total wealth of a nation could not possibly be more irrelevant to a criminal. What matters to them as a target is the wealth they can access, meaning wealth per household or area.
2) Wealthier areas universally have lower crime rates than poorer ones.
3) GDP per person is a far more accurate measure of standard of living or individual financial stability, and median wage is even better.
4) Apply your theory locally. You are saying that the richest area of your city would have the most criminals. You and I both know that its the opposite.

I can't imagine there being more disposable income in Canada. Or bigger banks. A bigger middle class means more people that can't afford to be robbed, not less.:lol:

Who can afford a gun to use in crime: Drug dealers, bank robbers? Not the poorest of criminals.

They may operate in the poorest sections of the city, but many don't live there. The obvious advantage to operating in the poorest sections is that the people there can't afford guns. No one powerful enough to oppose you.


You personal experience is an anecdote, not evidence. Some guy comes along and tells you he's never been victimized because he carries no gun. Both are equally meaningless when it comes to evaluating statistics or policy.
"Look that guy says it" is not a point. Maybe you can make one by explaining what exactly he's saying, and why you agree with it.

You definitely want to stay away from those studies, in that case. They interview criminals about their aversion to concealed carry laws also. They take police statistics at their word, and then make assumptions about what the numbers mean. It's just a bunch of emotion. :rolleyes:


But yet, with all those other weapons legally available in Canada except guns, murder rates are 3-4 times lower in Canada than the states.

Ok, but when the dirt hits the fan, can they save their own lives or is that not necessary?


The point is not the object, but the fact that to the literal interpreter he was saying 2 swords was enough for his entire group.

I disagree. Jesus was actually saying that it was enough to tell you to disobey the Roman Law against the carrying of swords by non-citizens, to make Him a transgressor.

But, of course, that means He told everyone to disobey weapons laws.:rofl:

LK 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
LK 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, "And he was reckoned among the transgressors": for the things concerning me have an end.


I understand it. With swords, knives, bats, blunt object etc, you kill much less effectively than guns. That is the relationship. That's why soldiers carry guns into war and not clubs. If it's the person, and not the weapon that makes the difference, then we should issue soldiers swords because its cheaper.

Actually, modern personal weapons are not designed to kill, and haven't been, in the US, since before Vietnam.

The thing that gets you killed or injured in combat is proximity. The closer you are, the more likely the casualty. The gun allows you to participate from a greater distance.


Let me get this straight. Not only are you saying that 12 laborers who've spent the last few years with Christ are going to fend off Roman soldiers with 2 swords for the group, but also that Jesus was specifically planning for that by limiting them to 2 swords, and further that rather than some kind of spiritual lesson like all his other episodes, Christ broke from this pattern to specifically make a logistical comment, the only one by Christ to make it into scripture? Oh not to mention that Christ had some training regiment in mind in order for those disciples to gain the required action-movie type skills to dispatch all their potential foes with the 2 swords.

When Elijah was working for God, he didn't even need a sword. He took down 150 men. You obviously don't believe in miracles.:lol:

It appears that you don't realize that the God Of Abraham is also a man of war:

EX 15:3 Jehovah is a man of war: Jehovah is his name.

It's interesting you should mention The Training Program:lol::

PS 144:1 Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
PS 144:2 My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me.


Jerusalem is quite different, since virtually the entire population has military training and experience with terrorists.

There is nothing new under the sun. That training is available, if you want it. Of course, since you're in Paradise Canada, you will never need it.:lol:

dan
Mar 1st 2009, 01:21 PM
Let's watch the "Guns Reduce Crime Debate"

Held on November 2, 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DraTc7h1LPg&feature=related

There are 13 parts.

Clavicula_Nox
Mar 2nd 2009, 02:56 AM
then we should issue soldiers swords because its cheaper

This is not true at all! A well-made sword that will not bend or break after a few strokes is more costly than several M16A2/M4 assault rifles. Obviously, I'm not referring to swords you buy in catalogs, but real fighting swords.

The effectiveness isn't in killing power alone, but in psychological. Early firearms replaced the longbow as the battlefield's premier killer. Why? The longbow had a much higher rate of fire and a much higher kill/incapacitation rate, and carried almost no risk to the operator. Compared to early firearms which took an extreme amount of time to reload, could not be aimed with any degree of efficiency, and had a better than average chance of combusting and injuring/killing the operator.

Why, then, did these same weapons replace the obviously superior longbow?

They were psychologically effective by creating a loud noise. A because that loud noise had an immediate effect vs the delayed effect of casualties induced by the longbow, the bowmen were slowly phased out,and advancement on early firearms continued.

Today's assault rifle is meant to injure, not kill. Indeed, tactically, it is better to injure an enemy than kill him. If he's injured, he struggles and screams, and his friends often try to evacuate him which can tie up 2-3 people for just one man. If you kill him, he just lays there and can be ignored.

Dan said it. The correlation between casualties and weaponry is proximity. A longbowman will take care of anyone who stands 100 paces away from him; but at 2, he's a mewling infant. A soldier armed with a light machine gun can accurately engage targets at extreme distances, but finds himself hindered in tight confines. A warrior in a shield wall is in much more imminent danger than a similar warrior circling his opponent 2 paces from each other.

NHL Fever
Mar 8th 2009, 09:50 AM
Denying a problem, when it's small, will stop some gullible press from advertising it, making it big. Or, if a government controls the press, you'll never see any problems they deem unnecessary.
But the government does not control the press with perhaps the exception of fox until recently. Certainly not in Canada. If they did, you would not see the widely different press opinions such as you do.


In Canada, today, maybe it doesn't. Necessity is the mother of invention. In the US, one of those studies says, that the concealed carry activities are thwarting a quadrupling of the crime rate.
But according to your theory it should be happening in Canada, with the defenseless population and all. But it does not, therefore its wrong.


In London, The Times headline in 2001 stated "Crime Triples In Four Years", after outlawing self-defense.

Are you still allowed to kill in self-defense, in Canada?
So give me the numbers for London and we can get into it.

Yes you can kill in self defense. http://www.self-defender.net/law5.htm


The arms merchants were manufacturing guns in a facility reminiscent of an old west blacksmith shop. The weapons were high quality replicas of modern weapons, and you could get virtually anything. A gun controller's nightmare. :lol: But once again, that is not happening in Canada, when your theory suggests it would. Who even knows whether the government in Pakistan made any feasible attempt to outlaw that manufacturing, or even wanted to? In contrast, the Canadian government does outlaw that, and its effective.


Not true. Guns don't make a murderer.
Never said they did. Only that they increase murders.


I remember a certain murder where a man inflicted an unsurvivable wound on a person with one move, with a knife, in less than a second. Contrast that with two criminals starting running gun battles with police and, after about an hour each, they succumbed to their wounds. One had 35 bullets in him, the other 42.
You're missing the issue here. Crazy anecdotes of all sorts can be found, but according to the point your trying to make here, the legality of knives should result in all kinds of rapid-kill stories around here. But again, it does not.


Well, the studies say it's obviously highly beneficial. I would add that there isn't an honest study that contradicts that statement. The government is silent. Of course, now that an obviously anti-gun president is in office, that will change. Many police officers agree that CCW is highly beneficial.
How would I know?, since you've refrained from quoting any of them, or presenting any of the data.


Upon witnessing a man yelling at a woman and pushing her into a van, a passerby tried to be a Good Samaritan. Police say he asked the woman if she was okay and told her she didn’t have to get into the man’s vehicle. While stopped at a traffic light moments later, the van’s driver confronted the man. Both men exited their vehicles, and the van’s driver knocked the Good Samaritan to the ground. Two women, including the woman the victim tried to help, exited the van and began stomping on him. A passing motorist witnessed the scene and quickly stopped. He drew a firearm and ordered the three suspects to halt the beating. Police received reports of a man holding people at gunpoint, but quickly determined he had a concealed carry permit and arrested the three suspects. (Ann Arbor News, Ann Arbor, MI, 02/14/08)

It was a terrifying night that refused to end. Edith and William Stevens, both in their 80s, had already scared away an intruder. According to the sheriff’s department, deputies completed an investigation and left, but two hours later the couple heard gunshots outside their home and glass breaking. William got his handgun and investigated. Finding an intruder in the hallway, he opened fire and the intruder returned it. “Had Mr. Stevens not had that handgun, I don’t know what could have happened,” said Maury County, Tenn., Chief Deputy Ashley Brown. The couple locked themselves in the bedroom and tried to phone police, but the lines were cut. The intruder, who police believe was after money for drugs, fired once more through a window. After discovering the intruder had fled, the couple phoned police from a neighbor’s house. (The Daily Herald, Columbia, TN, 02/10/08)
There are also plenty of stories of people drawing weapons only to escalate the situation and result in their death which otherwise would not have occurred. Anecdotes are not data.


I can't imagine there being more disposable income in Canada. Or bigger banks. A bigger middle class means more people that can't afford to be robbed, not less.:lol:

Who can afford a gun to use in crime: Drug dealers, bank robbers? Not the poorest of criminals.

They may operate in the poorest sections of the city, but many don't live there. The obvious advantage to operating in the poorest sections is that the people there can't afford guns. No one powerful enough to oppose you.
National GDP is irrelevant to criminals. They cannot steal GDP. I'm not sure why you don't understand wealth per capita, but that is what would be relevant. More wealth in the states is spread across more people, therefore its not more accesible to criminals because there are also many, many more criminals. Wealth per area creates a target, and there is more of it in terms of income in Canada. Theives cannot steal bonds, mutual funds and offshore accounts. Not the kind we're talking about anyway. The size of the bank means nothing, its the cash at the branch that matters to common criminals. Its what's in the typical guy's house when he goes away on vacation that matters. And this standard of living is higher in Canada.

You are incorrect. You are talking about people comitting murder, robbery, assault type of crimes, onces where according to you, immediate weaspons intervention might make a difference. Those types of people live predominantly in poor areas, and are poor themselves. Those crimes are predominantly crimes of passion, people who know each other. That means other poor people, other people they interact with more frequently.

You are also incorrect on affording guns. If your lifestyle if a criminal once, you're going to prioritize a weapon. According to you, cigarettes and beer should also be less common in poor areas, because they are expensive habits. But yet they are much more common. Casinos also have disproportionately greater number of poor people, and they do better in poor economic times. In reality I think all this is probably common sense to you. These are part of the reasons many of these people are poor with to begin with.


You definitely want to stay away from those studies, in that case. They interview criminals about their aversion to concealed carry laws also. They take police statistics at their word, and then make assumptions about what the numbers mean. It's just a bunch of emotion. :rolleyes:
Why the hesitancy in actually quoting the study? If you are familiar with it, it should not be an issue. Have you read it yourself?, or are you just believing somebody else's interpretation?


Ok, but when the dirt hits the fan, can they save their own lives or is that not necessary?
This is the whole point. In the absence of guns, the dirt hits the fan less.


I disagree. Jesus was actually saying that it was enough to tell you to disobey the Roman Law against the carrying of swords by non-citizens, to make Him a transgressor.

LK 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
LK 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, "And he was reckoned among the transgressors": for the things concerning me have an end.

But, of course, that means He told everyone to disobey weapons laws.:rofl:
No it doesn't. It only means Jesus stated that in order that the prophesy in Isaiah from which he quotes would come true. Applying your logic would mean we should never speak if we've ever on trial, because that is what Jesus did also.

Clearly Jesus meant a unique purpose in that statement. Paul contradicts your interpretation of Jesus words when he tells us to obey the civil government.



Actually, modern personal weapons are not designed to kill, and haven't been, in the US, since before Vietnam.

The thing that gets you killed or injured in combat is proximity. The closer you are, the more likely the casualty. The gun allows you to participate from a greater distance.
Then since most robberies, murders and assaults occur at close range, I guess guns are of little use in defending oneself.


When Elijah was working for God, he didn't even need a sword. He took down 150 men. You obviously don't believe in miracles.:lol:

It appears that you don't realize that the God Of Abraham is also a man of war:

EX 15:3 Jehovah is a man of war: Jehovah is his name.

It's interesting you should mention The Training Program:lol::

PS 144:1 Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
PS 144:2 My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me.
If you can appeal to God, then you don't need guns. I'm losing track of which side of the argument you are on.


There is nothing new under the sun. That training is available, if you want it. Of course, since you're in Paradise Canada, you will never need it.:lol:The people comitting the crimes, are not taking the training. If the training worked, you would not have such a high murder rate with firearms. The control needs to be at a level that actually impacts criminals.

Actually you do need training for guns in Canada, the difference is you can't go wandering the streets with them. But in many ways you're right, with so a low prevalence of weaspons, we hardly need it. Ultimately a society that doesn't need it is better than a society even where it is required.

NHL Fever
Mar 8th 2009, 09:58 AM
This is not true at all! A well-made sword that will not bend or break after a few strokes is more costly than several M16A2/M4 assault rifles. Obviously, I'm not referring to swords you buy in catalogs, but real fighting swords.

The effectiveness isn't in killing power alone, but in psychological. Early firearms replaced the longbow as the battlefield's premier killer. Why? The longbow had a much higher rate of fire and a much higher kill/incapacitation rate, and carried almost no risk to the operator. Compared to early firearms which took an extreme amount of time to reload, could not be aimed with any degree of efficiency, and had a better than average chance of combusting and injuring/killing the operator.

Why, then, did these same weapons replace the obviously superior longbow?

They were psychologically effective by creating a loud noise. A because that loud noise had an immediate effect vs the delayed effect of casualties induced by the longbow, the bowmen were slowly phased out,and advancement on early firearms continued.

Today's assault rifle is meant to injure, not kill. Indeed, tactically, it is better to injure an enemy than kill him. If he's injured, he struggles and screams, and his friends often try to evacuate him which can tie up 2-3 people for just one man. If you kill him, he just lays there and can be ignored.

Dan said it. The correlation between casualties and weaponry is proximity. A longbowman will take care of anyone who stands 100 paces away from him; but at 2, he's a mewling infant. A soldier armed with a light machine gun can accurately engage targets at extreme distances, but finds himself hindered in tight confines. A warrior in a shield wall is in much more imminent danger than a similar warrior circling his opponent 2 paces from each other.

I acknowledge your point as true, but its splitting hairs. The point is that much cheaper weapons can be found, that if indeed the person is the main reason behind the force, the gun should not be necessary. But we all know it is, and that's why soldiers have them.

I understand the psychological effect of loud noises. But loud noises are not quadrupling the murder rate in the US compared to other modern nations. Because early firearms were not effective does not mean current ones are not. If the psychological aspect was the main thing, why even have a weapon that fires something?, why not just something that makes a loud bang?

I also agree that those reasons you mention in your earlier post are extremely important factors. Sometimes I think Americans see those things in their culture and assume they are an island. We also have rap, poverty, fatherlessness, and youth just as prone to gangs in the same circumstances. But we have a much lower murder rate. Its a difference that matters.

Dragonfighter1
Mar 16th 2009, 11:09 AM
'Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.'

~ Thomas Jefferson
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

11. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

Clavicula_Nox
Mar 16th 2009, 06:53 PM
I acknowledge your point as true, but its splitting hairs. The point is that much cheaper weapons can be found, that if indeed the person is the main reason behind the force, the gun should not be necessary. But we all know it is, and that's why soldiers have them.

Weapons are force multipliers. An assault rifle has a greater effect on an enemy at range than a sword at range; but by themselves, they're just pieces of stuff on the ground.



I understand the psychological effect of loud noises. But loud noises are not quadrupling the murder rate in the US compared to other modern nations. Because early firearms were not effective does not mean current ones are not. If the psychological aspect was the main thing, why even have a weapon that fires something?, why not just something that makes a loud bang?

Two questions here.

As said before, the murder rate is kept down by medical technology, otherwise its increase would be more dramatic. I still attribute it to social immaturity.

We do have weapon systems that are comprised of loud bangs. In the Army we called them Flashbangs, and the police also call them that. They are a grenade which emit a loud bang and a bright flash which provides an immediate sensory overload to those in the vicinity. They are very effective in taking prisoners.

The problem here is that a person can be trained to resist these stressors through stress inoculation. When I first got to Iraq in 2004, the whistle and boom of incoming mortar rounds terrified me; but after a month of daily attacks, I barely seemed to notice them. I had been inoculated to the stress produced by the audial stimuli; and to a large extent, I was innoculated against the threat of danger in general. I no longer ducked, or looked for cover, I just continued doing what I was doing heedless of threat. For something like Flashbangs, this is harder to do because,while you may be innoculated to the bang, it's harder to achieve this for the flash.

Coincidentally, stress inoculation is what allows warriors to continue fighting longer than others; in this sentence, I use warriors to indiciate anyone who struggles with some form of achievement, to include you, a warrior against illness and infirmity. For you, stress inoculation was achieved through long hours in Med school plus long hours as an intern and whatever it is that doctors do for their training.

Now, to further answer your question "why use a weapon that fires at all," we have to assume the target is at least partially inoculated to the bang. If he knows the only thing you have is a bang, then there is little holding him back from taking you out. This is where the full affect of the early firearms came into being. The stimuli of the bang served as an anvil, and the threat of injury or death from a metal ball barreling its way through your body served as the hammer. The stimuli is nothing without some kind of real physical threat behind it, and once your target realizes you're firing blanks, it quite literally is all over.




I also agree that those reasons you mention in your earlier post are extremely important factors. Sometimes I think Americans see those things in their culture and assume they are an island. We also have rap, poverty, fatherlessness, and youth just as prone to gangs in the same circumstances. But we have a much lower murder rate. Its a difference that matters.

Have to re-scan what I said.

Okay, I'm not really certain what is causing our higher murder rate. I'm wondering if it's a combination of romanticized criminals, social immaturity, the "Me" generation, inordinate density, easy availbility of weapons, willingness to lessen responsibility on wrong-doers.

Clavicula_Nox
Mar 16th 2009, 10:11 PM
Weapons are force multipliers. An assault rifle has a greater effect on an enemy at range than a sword at range; but by themselves, they're just pieces of stuff on the ground.

I want to add one comment to this.

A man with an assault rifle at range who does not have the heart to kill his enemy will fall to the man rushing at him with a sword and intent.

NHL Fever
Mar 17th 2009, 02:33 PM
Weapons are force multipliers. An assault rifle has a greater effect on an enemy at range than a sword at range; but by themselves, they're just pieces of stuff on the ground.

So the same factors would apply to a civilian or criminal situation, the firearm is more effective at killing in the end because it has more options for range. This is why firearms are different than other weapons, and why the weapon, not only the person, makes a big difference.


Two questions here.

As said before, the murder rate is kept down by medical technology, otherwise its increase would be more dramatic. I still attribute it to social immaturity.

We do have weapon systems that are comprised of loud bangs. In the Army we called them Flashbangs, and the police also call them that. They are a grenade which emit a loud bang and a bright flash which provides an immediate sensory overload to those in the vicinity. They are very effective in taking prisoners.

The problem here is that a person can be trained to resist these stressors through stress inoculation. When I first got to Iraq in 2004, the whistle and boom of incoming mortar rounds terrified me; but after a month of daily attacks, I barely seemed to notice them. I had been inoculated to the stress produced by the audial stimuli; and to a large extent, I was innoculated against the threat of danger in general. I no longer ducked, or looked for cover, I just continued doing what I was doing heedless of threat. For something like Flashbangs, this is harder to do because,while you may be innoculated to the bang, it's harder to achieve this for the flash.

Coincidentally, stress inoculation is what allows warriors to continue fighting longer than others; in this sentence, I use warriors to indiciate anyone who struggles with some form of achievement, to include you, a warrior against illness and infirmity. For you, stress inoculation was achieved through long hours in Med school plus long hours as an intern and whatever it is that doctors do for their training.

Now, to further answer your question "why use a weapon that fires at all," we have to assume the target is at least partially inoculated to the bang. If he knows the only thing you have is a bang, then there is little holding him back from taking you out. This is where the full affect of the early firearms came into being. The stimuli of the bang served as an anvil, and the threat of injury or death from a metal ball barreling its way through your body served as the hammer. The stimuli is nothing without some kind of real physical threat behind it, and once your target realizes you're firing blanks, it quite literally is all over.


Right, and that's more or less what I thought, I was asking to make a point. In other words you agree that guns can kill a lot better than other weapons easily and cheaply available to the public, and that same combination of physical force and sounds is why we give soldiers guns instead of clubs.


Okay, I'm not really certain what is causing our higher murder rate. I'm wondering if it's a combination of romanticized criminals, social immaturity, the "Me" generation, inordinate density, easy availbility of weapons, willingness to lessen responsibility on wrong-doers.

I agree all those things contribute, question is why would that be different in Canada. To be fair, we do have less poverty per capita due to social programs and free health care, and a better educated public if you believe any of those cross-national tests that are done. It's also true there is a bit more of a 'we're in this together' mentality in Canada, compared to the US more individualistic attitude. But murder rate is so much higher, and guns are much better at killing, and readily available, that it doesn't take much to make the jump. This in combination with observing that all the horrible things many Americans say will happen with gun control, are not happening with gun control, leads me to my overall stance on the issue.

Clavicula_Nox
Mar 17th 2009, 03:23 PM
I'm not sure why it's different in Canada; perhaps it's the Maple Syrup Diet? I really don't know. It seems like a worthy avenue of study.

teddyv
Mar 17th 2009, 05:04 PM
I'm not sure why it's different in Canada; perhaps it's the Maple Syrup Diet? I really don't know. It seems like a worthy avenue of study.
I've had one thing explained to me that is compelling, but it is by no means reality.

The US history and culture is born out of revolution. Canada does not have that history. Based on my exposure on BibleForums and other sources, American's in general seem distrustful of government which seems to stem from the founding fathers wording of the constitution and its various amendments.

Again, this is a Canadian talking, so its certainly an outsiders view.:)

Clavicula_Nox
Mar 17th 2009, 05:47 PM
I've had one thing explained to me that is compelling, but it is by no means reality.

The US history and culture is born out of revolution. Canada does not have that history. Based on my exposure on BibleForums and other sources, American's in general seem distrustful of government which seems to stem from the founding fathers wording of the constitution and its various amendments.

Again, this is a Canadian talking, so its certainly an outsiders view.:)

I think that's valid. Many Americans who think are also distrustful of our government. I say many, but not all, there is certainly a large number of highly intelligent people who think government is The Answer.

I heartily disagree; but that is a different issue.

So is it upstart colonialism that is causing these problems?

RabbiKnife
Mar 17th 2009, 06:05 PM
No, it is the desire for freedom.

No, Wait.

What problems?

Clavicula_Nox
Mar 17th 2009, 11:23 PM
No, it is the desire for freedom.

No, Wait.

What problems?

I don't understand. Are you suggesting there are no social problems in America,and that even if there are, it's because people want freedom?

People don't want freedom, they want a nice little monarch to tell them what to do. People think they want freedom; but whenthey have it, they just don't know what to do with it.

Brother Mark
Mar 17th 2009, 11:37 PM
The purpose of the second amendment is clearly described by your founding fathers. It was so that you were not helpless to the oppression of the crown, and so you could form a militia in your state strong enough to fend off the federal army if the central government were to impose their will on your state. Both of those reasons have been obsolete for many years, but the side-effects continue to rear their head.

Actually, this is false. The supreme court has ruled the second amendment was about private citizens owning guns. The whole point was that the right of the people to bear arms would not be infringed upon.

Brother Mark
Mar 17th 2009, 11:41 PM
This in combination with observing that all the horrible things many Americans say will happen with gun control, are not happening with gun control, leads me to my overall stance on the issue.

The single most horrible things about gun control is that it takes away the right of the individual to own guns. Even so, crime statistics show over and over again that in the American culture, gun control doesn't really impact crime rates for the better anyway.

teddyv
Mar 18th 2009, 04:29 AM
The single most horrible things about gun control is that it takes away the right of the individual to own guns. Even so, crime statistics show over and over again that in the American culture, gun control doesn't really impact crime rates for the better anyway.
Would this be a case of the horse having already left the barn?

Brother Mark
Mar 18th 2009, 01:52 PM
Would this be a case of the horse having already left the barn?

Not in my opinion. As has been pointed out in earlier threads, there are examples of cities who passed laws encouraging gun ownership and crime went down.

Thing is, people tend to do what is in their hearts. The problem is far more a people problem than anything else. Fix people and the crime rate goes down. When the US started putting the criminals in jail, crime went way down. Thing is, some folks would rather take away gun rights than put people in jail.

Washington DC had one of the highest murder rates in the country along with the strongest gun control laws. The common citizen didn't have the guns while the criminals did. They broke the law to own them. Some folks think that means we should just outlaw guns nationally. Why not just throw criminals in jail, then we don't have to worry about it again.

RabbiKnife
Mar 18th 2009, 02:59 PM
I LOVE gun control.

Especially 2 inch groups with my wife's Glock at 15 yards.

Brother Mark
Mar 18th 2009, 03:01 PM
I LOVE gun control.

Especially 2 inch groups with my wife's Glock at 15 yards.

LOL! My idea of gun control is groups inside a quarter at 100 yards. :D

RabbiKnife
Mar 18th 2009, 03:11 PM
LOL! My idea of gun control is groups inside a quarter at 100 yards. :D

With my .257 Roberts and 3 x 9 Leupold, sure.

But not with my wife's Glock!

:cool:

dan
Mar 19th 2009, 09:36 AM
But the government does not control the press with perhaps the exception of fox until recently. Certainly not in Canada. If they did, you would not see the widely different press opinions such as you do.

You can't seriously believe that a government that has control of media would ever give it up.:lol:

In Canada, unlike the US, the government actually owns the media, so I'm sure you don't mean that. What else don't you know about your own country?:rolleyes:

Actually, all outlets that use propaganda, insure that the lies are buried in at least 80 percent truth. Studies have shown that it makes it more believable.
So, it follows that, if you see a lot of varying opinions presented in the same program, you may already be a victim.:lol:


But according to your theory it should be happening in Canada, with the defenseless population and all. But it does not, therefore its wrong.

It's not a theory. There is not one honest study that denies that guns save lives when used by civilians to fend off criminals. Not even one.

Not true. If a certain set of numbers don't fit Canada, it's because the situation is different. So, I guess we can assume that crime, in the context of what is present in the US, is not present. Or, the government is covering it up.


So give me the numbers for London and we can get into it.

Well I guess that London admits the increase in violent crime, but doesn't admit to guns being involved, as the category presented is "Total Violence Against The Person". The number in 1997 is 250,827. In 2001 the number is 600,922.

These numbers are from "The Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Crime in England and Wales 2003/2004", Tricia Dodd, Sian Nicholas, David Povey, Alison Walker

Remember, these are the numbers that the government puts out. The stats that are used by the UN are not even allowed to be publicized in England.


In contrast, the Canadian government does outlaw that, and its effective.

As far as they will tell you anyways.


Never said they did. Only that they increase murders.

Sorry, guns in the possession of law abiding citizens are overwhelmingly used for good. In the US they are responsible for stopping crimes at a rate three times, sometimes four times, the rate at which criminals abuse them. And there is no study, that is honest, that contradicts that statement.

That means, that your feelings are not represented in these studies, and your instincts are, apparently, wrong.


How would I know?, since you've refrained from quoting any of them, or presenting any of the data.

I'm such a softy. OK.

If your county adopts a non-discretionary concealed carry law you can expect to see:

a drop in overall violent crime of: 5.5 percent

" " " " murder rate of: 7.6 "

" " " " rape rate : 6.2 "

" " " " robbery : 4.0 "

" " " " aggravated assault: 7.4 "

Table 4.14, Pg 93, More Guns Less Crime, Second Edition


There are also plenty of stories of people drawing weapons only to escalate the situation and result in their death which otherwise would not have occurred. Anecdotes are not data.

Why don't you find one of those stories, so we can see one?

Single anecdotes are not data, but, 2.4 million anecdotes per year, are, actually.:idea:


National GDP is irrelevant to criminals. They cannot steal GDP. I'm not sure why you don't understand wealth per capita, but that is what would be relevant. More wealth in the states is spread across more people, therefore its not more accesible to criminals because there are also many, many more criminals. Wealth per area creates a target, and there is more of it in terms of income in Canada.

Wealth per capita is irrelevant to criminals. Criminals are opportunists, and, as such, will steal what they can when they can.


Theives cannot steal bonds, mutual funds and offshore accounts. Not the kind we're talking about anyway. The size of the bank means nothing, its the cash at the branch that matters to common criminals. Its what's in the typical guy's house when he goes away on vacation that matters. And this standard of living is higher in Canada.

Actually, high value bearer bonds are transported, sometimes, by public courier and are, occasionally, stolen.

And who has the most money at local branches? Not Canada. Largest illegal withdrawal from a branch office, at gunpoint, ever: 8.1 million from the local Seafirst branch in Lakewood, Washington, USA.


You are incorrect. You are talking about people comitting murder, robbery, assault type of crimes, onces where according to you, immediate weapons intervention might make a difference. Those types of people live predominantly in poor areas, and are poor themselves.

Guns are only fifty dollars. More than that is spent on cigarettes. It's a shame that the good poor people don't prioritize a gun.


Those crimes are predominantly crimes of passion, people who know each other. That means other poor people, other people they interact with more frequently.

According to the studies, that is not the case. Most murderers don't know their victims. Unless you consider drug users and dealers to be in the same family, or rival gangs to be brothers and sisters.

Remember that gang bangers can murder their way into the gang, and often do.


You are also incorrect on affording guns. If your lifestyle if a criminal once, you're going to prioritize a weapon. According to you, cigarettes and beer should also be less common in poor areas, because they are expensive habits.

Beer is expensive? Are you sure Canada is a rich country?:lol:


Why the hesitancy in actually quoting the study? If you are familiar with it, it should not be an issue. Have you read it yourself?, or are you just believing somebody else's interpretation?

All those books in the reading list I wrote are in my library, and I've read them.

You don't have a reading list, do you? That's because there is no honest study that has your conclusions.


This is the whole point. In the absence of guns, the dirt hits the fan less.

Can't tell that tale in Israel or Switzerland. Switzerland has the highest gun ownership rate in the world, and a lower murder rate than Canada. Israel has the highest concealed carry rate in the world, and a lower murder rate than Canada.

Not true. With the US dissuading three of four crimes with guns, I would say that, if crime ever comes to Canada, those without guns are the ones that suffer.


No it doesn't. It only means Jesus stated that in order that the prophesy in Isaiah from which he quotes would come true. Applying your logic would mean we should never speak if we've ever on trial, because that is what Jesus did also.

I disagree. If Jesus had only your purpose in mind, He would have forbade the carrying of weapons or had the Holy Spirit do it. It never happened that way.

Jesus said to keep His Sayings. This is one of His Sayings, will you not keep it?

LK 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.

MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.


Clearly Jesus meant a unique purpose in that statement. Paul contradicts your interpretation of Jesus words when he tells us to obey the civil government.

And yet the Bible teaches that the beast will take weapons away. Should we agree with a government that agrees with the beast?

You know what happens to those that agree with the beast, don't you?


Then since most robberies, murders and assaults occur at close range, I guess guns are of little use in defending oneself.

Actually, the criminal type is so cowardly, in most cases, that he will run away. That's really neat to watch, by the way.:pp

The studies show that women, in particular, will have a 400 percent better chance of not being injured at all, when fighting back with firearms.

The studies not only show excellent effectiveness but astounding deterrent properties. Only in one out of two thousand cases does the defender have to shoot. All the other times, the bad guy runs away.


If you can appeal to God, then you don't need guns. I'm losing track of which side of the argument you are on.

According to God, that's not true, don't you read the Bible?

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

Allow me to spell out for you, which side I'm on: God's Side.

God is the one that insists on you carrying weapons, and killing murderers.


The people comitting the crimes, are not taking the training. If the training worked, you would not have such a high murder rate with firearms. The control needs to be at a level that actually impacts criminals.

Actually, I'm glad the criminals aren't taking the training!

The training works fine, but participation in carrying firearms is lower than it should be.

If you think you can control the access to guns by criminals you are only kidding yourself. Or, perhaps, your government is kidding you.:D


Actually you do need training for guns in Canada, the difference is you can't go wandering the streets with them. But in many ways you're right, with so a low prevalence of weaspons, we hardly need it. Ultimately a society that doesn't need it is better than a society even where it is required.

I disagree. As mentioned before, if Canada sees a sudden increase in crime, the population will not be prepared. As a result, a large casualty toll will be taken.

Also, look again at Switzerland, largest possession rate in the world, and a lower murder rate than Canada. That could lead me to wonder: Why doesn't Canada have more guns to lower their murder rate?:o

NHL Fever
Mar 20th 2009, 05:08 AM
You can't seriously believe that a government that has control of media would ever give it up.:lol:

In Canada, unlike the US, the government actually owns the media, so I'm sure you don't mean that. What else don't you know about your own country?:rolleyes:


Eye-rolling notwithstanding, you are misinformed. Only the CBC is government owned, the other stations are private. I'm not aware of any government controlled newspapers. There may be one, but I've never seen it. This is a free country, with a free press. Opinions are widely divergent in the press. Have you been here?



So, it follows that, if you see a lot of varying opinions presented in the same program, you may already be a victim.:lol:


That does not make any sense. Can you clarify?



It's not a theory. There is not one honest study that denies that guns save lives when used by civilians to fend off criminals. Not even one.


Nor is there one that does not deny it, not that youíve reference anyway. I see you quoted something further down, I'll check it out. The issue again is not whether guns can do good, but whether the good outweighs the harm. Heroin is good for the local economy.



Not true. If a certain set of numbers don't fit Canada, it's because the situation is different. So, I guess we can assume that crime, in the context of what is present in the US, is not present. Or, the government is covering it up.


So your position is - if it does not work in Canada, it must be a conspiracy by the government. You are starting with the assumption that A is true and doing mental gymnastics to assume everything else must fit, instead of asking, 'is A true'? That's unscientific unless you have some data.



Well I guess that London admits the increase in violent crime, but doesn't admit to guns being involved, as the category presented is "Total Violence Against The Person". The number in 1997 is 250,827. In 2001 the number is 600,922.

These numbers are from "The Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Crime in England and Wales 2003/2004", Tricia Dodd, Sian Nicholas, David Povey, Alison Walker

Remember, these are the numbers that the government puts out. The stats that are used by the UN are not even allowed to be publicized in England.

Please clarify how this makes your point. Iím assuming youíre suggesting there was an increase in gun control and then crime went up? Also please link to your source, I could not find it.

My own search of the home office statistics contradicts you. The British Crime Survey summary of main findings reports that violent crime and crime overall increased from 1981 and peaked iní95, then declined ever since. Specifically, all violent crime is down 48% since 1995.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708summ.pdf

The 25 year overview points out that police reports of crimes showed gradual increase over time, but the actual crime rate as reported by surveys peaked in 1995 and declined ever since. In other words, while police have improved reporting, the real crime rate has declined.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/bcs25.pdf

Since 1918, the proportion of crime actually reported compared to real crime rate has dramatically improved. There was a 3-fold improvement in reporting for vandalism and close to 10-fold for wounding. That would more than explain the discrepancy you noted, in fact it implies the crime rate actually went down. Indeed that is the conclusion of their report.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/bcs25.pdf

Most noteworthy is the reporting on trends of violent crime. While overall lower, the biggest decline is in the proportion committed by acquaintances and domestic violence incidents. This is the majority of violent crimes, and precisely the decline one would expect with gun control. Passions, anger and availability of firearms is more deadly than passion, anger and availability of less effective weapons.


Sorry, guns in the possession of law abiding citizens are overwhelmingly used for good. In the US they are responsible for stopping crimes at a rate three times, sometimes four times, the rate at which criminals abuse them. And there is no study, that is honest, that contradicts that statement.

That means, that your feelings are not represented in these studies, and your instincts are, apparently, wrong.


Iíve never referenced my instincts since they are irrelevant. My conclusions are based on the raw data I can find. I have yet to see the studies you keep talking about, please link me, specifically where is the data for this proportion of guns used for good vs bad you mentioned? Because John Lott tells you the studies are there, does not mean they are. You need to check for yourself.


I'm such a softy. OK.

If your county adopts a non-discretionary concealed carry law you can expect to see:

a drop in overall violent crime of: 5.5 percent

" " " " murder rate of: 7.6 "

" " " " rape rate : 6.2 "

" " " " robbery : 4.0 "

" " " " aggravated assault: 7.4 "

Table 4.14, Pg 93, More Guns Less Crime, Second Edition


Thatís a conclusion, not evidence. I donít have that book and canít find a transcript online unless you know of one. Where do his numbers come from? I need the raw material man, the real info. He must have consulted some police database or crime stats somewhere. Donít take somebody elseís word for it, go to the source yourself. So which study/source is he using?


Why don't you find one of those stories, so we can see one?
Single anecdotes are not data, but, 2.4 million anecdotes per year, are, actually.:idea:
.
Actually theyíre not. Words have distinct meanings. An anecdote by definition a story, or an occurrence you observed, its not data. The amount of anecdotes doesnít matter. To be clear, what I believe you are referencing is not 2.4 million anecdotes, but rather a Florida State University study, which was replicated in part by a 1994 National Institute of Justice survey, which estimated that about 1.7 to 3.1 million Americans used their gun in self defense in a given year. From what I can see it was a poorly done study, there are number of critical flaws.
1) The study was a telephone survey. They phoned about 2568 people, 45 had used their gun that year. From that, they extrapolate to assume that means 3.1 million people. But turns out it was actually only 19 who showed the weapon to a perpetrator. Thatís 0.8% of the people they phoned. The sample size is too small.
2) They report that 322 000 women defended against rape. This number is likewise an extrapolation from a tiny handful of calls. There were however only 316 000 reported rapes that year. Do women ward off rapes with guns more often than all rapes even occur? Obviously that is impossible. These flaws are a product of the extreme weakness of the numbers used which led to the skewed statistics.


Wealth per capita is irrelevant to criminals. Criminals are opportunists, and, as such, will steal what they can when they can.

Thatís exactly what wealth per capita represents.


Actually, high value bearer bonds are transported, sometimes, by public courier and are, occasionally, stolen.

And who has the most money at local branches? Not Canada. Largest illegal withdrawal from a branch office, at gunpoint, ever: 8.1 million from the local Seafirst branch in Lakewood, Washington, USA.


You are trying to prove the common by referencing the rare and the extreme. You and I both know the most common crimes committed with guns are small-time robbery, or crimes of passion by acquaintances or relatives, just as the British BCS reports. That is where gun control has its greatest benefit.

Since I know you will want to argue it anyway, there were 7272 bank robberies in 2006. http://www.fbi.gov/publications/bcs/bcs2006/bank_crime_2006.htm
That is 1.7% of all robberies in 2006, they are rare compared to typical robberies.
I canít find any number for bearer bonds, maybe you can.


According to the studies, that is not the case. Most murderers don't know their victims. Unless you consider drug users and dealers to be in the same family, or rival gangs to be brothers and sisters.

False. I think from this point on, if you are going to say Ďstudies showí, you need to show the study. You canít appeal to some mysterious data that I canít see. The FBI reports there are about twice to three times as many murders relating to people in some kind of pre-existing relationship than strangers. British BCS shows the same. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_09.html



All those books in the reading list I wrote are in my library, and I've read them.

Then you should have no trouble explaining them.


You don't have a reading list, do you? That's because there is no honest study that has your conclusions.

I use the raw material which is the truest source of information, rather than just repeat the ideas of others. Your authors are only useful if they are using reliable sources, which can be checked fortunately. Why would you want second-hand editorialized information when you can get primary source?



Can't tell that tale in Israel or Switzerland. Switzerland has the highest gun ownership rate in the world, and a lower murder rate than Canada. Israel has the highest concealed carry rate in the world, and a lower murder rate than Canada.


I think your facts are wrong. Wikipedia says that the US has the highest gun ownership in the world, about double Switzerland. This other website (below) says Canada has a comparable, but slightly higher rate of gun ownership than Switzerland. Canada has therefore a slightly higher gun prevalence, and corresponding slightly higher murder rate. The US has a much higher gun prevalence, and a much higher murder rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

I canít find a rate of concealed carry for Israel, where do you get that info from? I know Israel has a high rate, itís a unique place since everybody is trained due to military training, and the population is united behind a common threat. Itís a unique situation and I acknowledge that they do not suffer consequences from high gun ownership. There will always be exceptions to every rule. Overall as a rule, the nations with stricter gun control have lower murder rates, and the vice versa.


Not true. With the US dissuading three of four crimes with guns, I would say that, if crime ever comes to Canada, those without guns are the ones that suffer.

You need a reference for the three of four statement. We do have comparable rates of some crimes as the US, because we have very similar cultures in many ways. The huge difference is in murders, and the other huge difference is the weapon.


I disagree. If Jesus had only your purpose in mind, He would have forbade the carrying of weapons or had the Holy Spirit do it. It never happened that way.

I donít see why my explanation of Jesus words would require him to forbid weapons. I never said Jesus was forbidding weapons, I said he was not promoting them. He was in fact not commenting on weapons at all, but rather speaking to a deeper meaning via object lessons and metaphors, as he always did.


Jesus said to keep His Sayings. This is one of His Sayings, will you not keep it?

Jesus was speaking of the coming expectation of persecution that the disciples should anticipate, as we all should. I take that to heart because itís a spiritual truth central to walking with Christ, itís not about two literal chunks of steel. Itís missing the point to treat this spiritual truth on a such superficial level, IMO.


LK 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.

MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.


Jesus parables require a little thoughtful meditation. They are not for the purpose of relating literal historical details, they are teachings about the nature of God. Because Jesus describes situations in his stories, does mean he is promoting those situations, the message is what is important. He also talks about his fatherís house with all the beggars outside who eventually get invited in. Does that mean we should get a bunch of beggars to hang out outside our houses? He talks about the servant the ten talents, does mean we should get indentured servants? Look beyond the details, to the point.


And yet the Bible teaches that the beast will take weapons away. Should we agree with a government that agrees with the beast?

You know what happens to those that agree with the beast, don't you?

Iíll need a biblical reference to put that into context.



According to God, that's not true, don't you read the Bible?

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

Allow me to spell out for you, which side I'm on: God's Side.

God is the one that insists on you carrying weapons, and killing murderers.

If you believe that according to your interpretation, then you should be out becoming a vigilante.

That verse appears to be arguing against a weapon, stating if you kill with one you should be killed.


Actually, I'm glad the criminals aren't taking the training!

The training works fine, but participation in carrying firearms is lower than it should be.

If you think you can control the access to guns by criminals you are only kidding yourself. Or, perhaps, your government is kidding you.

But once again the proof is that by and large we have been able to control criminals access to guns in Canada. The proof is that very few crimes are committed with guns.



I disagree. As mentioned before, if Canada sees a sudden increase in crime, the population will not be prepared. As a result, a large casualty toll will be taken.

We do have crime, we just have a less of it, and when it does occur, there is much less often a murder associated with it. The theory is that we donít see a sudden increase in violent crimes precisely because we donít have the guns. If we tried to get ready for an increase by using your logic, we may end up creating the violence we are trying to prepare for.


Also, look again at Switzerland, largest possession rate in the world, and a lower murder rate than Canada. That could lead me to wonder: Why doesn't Canada have more guns to lower their murder rate?:o
See above, they do not have the highest possession rate.


Yikes, getting long.

dan
Mar 21st 2009, 04:36 PM
Eye-rolling notwithstanding, you are misinformed. Only the CBC is government owned, the other stations are private. I'm not aware of any government controlled newspapers. There may be one, but I've never seen it. This is a free country, with a free press. Opinions are widely divergent in the press. Have you been here?

I have been to Canada three times.


That does not make any sense. Can you clarify?

I think it makes lots of sense. Try it this way:
The material I've read about Public Affairs methodology says that if you wish to amplify a belief in the public eye, present the view in a good light and an opposing middle ground view in a bad light. Any other middle ground opinions should be presented in a bad light, but only if you cannot compose at least 80 percent of your presentation on the subject of your original middle ground view. The opinion you most want to discourage must not be covered, if possible, or be presented in the worst possible terms.


Nor is there one that does not deny it, not that you’ve reference anyway. I see you quoted something further down, I'll check it out. The issue again is not whether guns can do good, but whether the good outweighs the harm. Heroin is good for the local economy.

Lott and Mustard (1997), Kleck and Kates (1986), Wright and Rossi (1979) are the three most prominent studies ever, that I'm aware of. The 1997 study is the largest ever done, and if you go to Lott's website, he will allow you to download some of his data, or, at least he used to.

Two of the books mentioned in a previous post are the 1986 and 1997 studies.

They all will refute any claims that guns do more harm than good.
Yes, he still allows the data to be downloaded:
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

This site has a lecture from Kleck:
http://www.independent.org/events/detail.asp?eventID=24


So your position is - if it does not work in Canada, it must be a conspiracy by the government. You are starting with the assumption that A is true and doing mental gymnastics to assume everything else must fit, instead of asking, 'is A true'? That's unscientific unless you have some data.

Not at all. If your country hasn't reached a point in it's history when crime is a large burden, happy birthday! But if you think you can just say, "see, we're not like those crude American savages, let's go to tea" (while extending the correct pinky, of course), I think the future has a rude surprise for you.:lol:


Please clarify how this makes your point. I’m assuming you’re suggesting there was an increase in gun control and then crime went up? Also please link to your source, I could not find it.

See all of the aforementioned studies.


My own search of the home office statistics contradicts you. The British Crime Survey summary of main findings reports that violent crime and crime overall increased from 1981 and peaked in’95, then declined ever since.
Specifically, all violent crime is down 48% since 1995.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708summ.pdf

Really? Here is the breakdown of the same summary you reference:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708.pdf

1997 is the year Britain outlawed self-defense, I believe.

On page 46, number "1 murder", I see a 27 percent increase from 1997 to 2003. What do you see?

On page 46 next to the heading, "8b weapons possession", I see a 30 percent increase from 1997 to 2005. What do you see?

Same page at the bottom, "Total violence against persons", I see a 400 percent increase 1997 to 2007. What do you see?

I thought you liked raw data?


The 25 year overview points out that police reports of crimes showed gradual increase over time, but the actual crime rate as reported by surveys peaked in 1995 and declined ever since. In other words, while police have improved reporting, the real crime rate has declined.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/bcs25.pdf

So, they lie in the summary hoping you won't read or are too stupid to assess the numbers for yourself? Big surprise from England, NOT!


Since 1918, the proportion of crime actually reported compared to real crime rate has dramatically improved. There was a 3-fold improvement in reporting for vandalism and close to 10-fold for wounding. That would more than explain the discrepancy you noted, in fact it implies the crime rate actually went down. Indeed that is the conclusion of their report.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/bcs25.pdf

Except for their wonderfully accurate (we hope) counting of the dead bodies, I would gladly agree with you.:rofl:


Most noteworthy is the reporting on trends of violent crime. While overall lower, the biggest decline is in the proportion committed by acquaintances and domestic violence incidents. This is the majority of violent crimes, and precisely the decline one would expect with gun control. Passions, anger and availability of firearms is more deadly than passion, anger and availability of less effective weapons.

And yet their numbers contradict everything you are saying.:rolleyes:


That’s a conclusion, not evidence. I don’t have that book and can’t find a transcript online unless you know of one. Where do his numbers come from? I need the raw material man, the real info. He must have consulted some police database or crime stats somewhere. Don’t take somebody else’s word for it, go to the source yourself. So which study/source is he using?

I understand he used the data from the county reports that make up FBI/UCR.


Actually they’re not. Words have distinct meanings. An anecdote by definition a story, or an occurrence you observed, its not data. The amount of anecdotes doesn’t matter. To be clear, what I believe you are referencing is not 2.4 million anecdotes, but rather a Florida State University study, which was replicated in part by a 1994 National Institute of Justice survey, which estimated that about 1.7 to 3.1 million Americans used their gun in self defense in a given year. From what I can see it was a poorly done study, there are number of critical flaws.
1) The study was a telephone survey. They phoned about 2568 people, 45 had used their gun that year. From that, they extrapolate to assume that means 3.1 million people. Butturns out it was actually only 19 who showed the weapon to a perpetrator. That’s 0.8% of the people they phoned.

The sample size is too small.
2) They report that 322 000 women defended against rape. This number is likewise an extrapolation from a tiny handful of calls. There were however only 316 000 reported rapes that year. Do women ward off rapes with guns more often than all rapes even occur? Obviously that is impossible. These flaws are a product of the extreme weakness of the numbers used which led to the skewed statistics.

I disagree. If actual history cannot become statistical, no truth can ever come from statistics. But then, someone's already said, "There are liars, damned liars, and statistics". Will Rogers, or, perhaps Samuel Clements. :lol:

Also, the methodology is sound, as has been demonstrated, and verified with other studies.

I have used the threat of a gun on eleven occasions, against individuals and groups of up to four. All successful, all unreported. When the aforementioned survey called me, I refused to participate, as did others that I've talked to. It never occurred to me that it could be important, at the time.:(


You are trying to prove the common by referencing the rare and the extreme. You and I both know the most common crimes committed with guns are small-time robbery, or crimes of passion by acquaintances or relatives, just as the British BCS reports. That is where gun control has its greatest benefit.

Don't take my word for it, keep looking. Maybe you will convince yourself. But, just don't say, "dan didn't warn me".


False. I think from this point on, if you are going to say ‘studies show’, you need to show the study. You can’t appeal to some mysterious data that I can’t see. The FBI reports there are about twice to three times as many murders relating to people in some kind of pre-existing relationship than strangers. British BCS shows the same.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_09.html

Again, I disagree. Check your own reference above, again: Acquaintance: 3465, Stranger: 1905, Unknown: 6750.

That's 12010 out of 14990, I'd say that is a majority. Even if you eliminate Acquaintance, it's 8655 and still a majority.


Then you should have no trouble explaining them.

I'll work on that.


I use the raw material which is the truest source of information, rather than just repeat the ideas of others. Your authors are only useful if they are using reliable sources, which can be checked fortunately. Why would you want second-hand editorialized information when you can get primary source?

Yeah, I noticed that.:D


I think your facts are wrong. Wikipedia says that the US has the highest gun ownership in the world, about double Switzerland. This other website (below) says Canada has a comparable, but slightly higher rate of gun ownership than Switzerland. Canada has therefore a slightly higher gun prevalence, and corresponding slightly higher murder rate. The US has a much higher gun prevalence, and a much higher murder rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

US has a high rate? OK, but ours has been dropping, and continues to drop even though we've increased our concealed carry rate every year since 1995.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html

And what of Canada? Does Canada's rate go up every year? The statistics website is under repair.:hmm:


I can’t find a rate of concealed carry for Israel, where do you get that info from? I know Israel has a high rate, it’s a unique place since everybody is trained due to military training, and the population is united behind a common threat. It’s a unique situation and I acknowledge that they do not suffer consequences from high gun ownership. There will always be exceptions to every rule. Overall as a rule, the nations with stricter gun control have lower murder rates, and the vice versa.

I know there are some that disagree, but, the real rule is: MORE GUNS LESS CRIME.


You need a reference for the three of four statement. We do have comparable rates of some crimes as the US, because we have very similar cultures in many ways. The huge difference is in murders, and the other huge difference is the weapon.

In a bad year about 800,000 crimes are committed with guns. In a slow year, about 600,000. At least in past times.

Estimated interdiction rates by gun owners run 1.4 million to 3.5 million per year. Re: Point Blank: Guns And Violence In America.


I don’t see why my explanation of Jesus words would require him to forbid weapons. I never said Jesus was forbidding weapons, I said he was not promoting them. He was in fact not commenting on weapons at all, but rather speaking to a deeper meaning via object lessons and metaphors, as he always did.

Because of the emphasis that is placed on that behavior by some modern clerics.

Mere existence in this world requires weapons and their use, or the threat of their use by someone else.

Not at all. Weapons and the ability to use them to overcome evil is a constant theme in the Bible. Not to mention commandments in the Law to kill all murderers and others committing certain offenses.
Jesus steps away from that not at all, but does increase slightly the rules of tolerance for minor offenses, such as slapping your face etc. Unfortunately, too much is assumed beyond the literal words of Christ.


Jesus was speaking of the coming expectation of persecution that the disciples should anticipate, as we all should. I take that to heart because it’s a spiritual truth central to walking with Christ, it’s not about two literal chunks of steel. It’s missing the point to treat this spiritual truth on a such superficial level, IMO.

I disagree. He told His Followers to carry a sword, even if they had to trade their coat. He says that peace is made from armed men. He says good men do not tolerate home invasion. He instructed His followers to kill a murderer that attacks with a weapon using a weapon, their own.


Jesus parables require a little thoughtful meditation. They are not for the purpose of relating literal historical details, they are teachings about the nature of God. Because Jesus describes situations in his stories, does mean he is promoting those situations, the message is what is important. He also talks about his father’s house with all the beggars outside who eventually get invited in. Does that mean we should get a bunch of beggars to hang out outside our houses? He talks about the servant the ten talents, does mean we should get indentured servants? Look beyond the details, to the point.

If God needs an interpreter for His Word, He has wasted His Time, and ours.


I’ll need a biblical reference to put that into context.

Sure. The Bible says the beast will take weapons away, and, destroy Christianity at the same time:

DAN 11:22 And the arms of the fighter shall be overcome before his face, and shall be broken; yea also the prince of the covenant.(Douay-Rehims)

DAN 11:22 And the arms of the flood shall be swept away from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.(Jewish Publication Society 1917 OT)

DAN 11:22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant. (King James Version)

The "wounded-head-of-the beast" will come and say, in effect, that, "muderers that kill with a weapon must not be killed with a weapon". This message, in my opinion, is the reason for the Holy Spirit rebuking the vision of the wounded-head by saying to John:

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.


If you believe that according to your interpretation, then you should be out becoming a vigilante.

I disagree:

1TIM 5:22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.

But if one became a vigilante, and didn't make any mistakes in identification of actual murderers, do you think God would punish him?

NUM 35:31 You shall not take money of him that is guilty of blood, but he shall die forthwith.
NUM 35:32 The banished and fugitives before the death of the high priest may by no means return into their own cities.
NUM 35:33 Defile not the land of your habitation, which is stained with the blood of the innocent: neither can it otherwise be expiated, but by his blood that hath shed the blood of another.
NUM 35:34 And thus shall your possession he cleansed, myself abiding with you. For I am the Lord that dwell among the children of Israel.


That verse appears to be arguing against a weapon, stating if you kill with one you should be killed.

You might have something there, if God was the kind to change His Mind, but:

JAS 1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
JAS 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.


But once again the proof is that by and large we have been able to control criminals access to guns in Canada. The proof is that very few crimes are committed with guns.

In the lecture I posted above, Gary Kleck was just talking about how the burglary rate of Canada went up above the US's after your first "big wave of gun control twenty years ago".:rofl:


We do have crime, we just have a less of it, and when it does occur, there is much less often a murder associated with it. The theory is that we don’t see a sudden increase in violent crimes precisely because we don’t have the guns. If we tried to get ready for an increase by using your logic, we may end up creating the violence we are trying to prepare for.

I can't wait for Canada to reopen their stats website.:lol:

Dragonfighter1
Mar 24th 2009, 01:06 PM
PEOPLE ASK WHY?
I Carry a Gun

My old grandpa said to me son,' there comes a time in every man's life
When he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and usually it's
When he becomes too old to take an tail whoopin'.


I don't carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid..
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating
myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed,
andnot on a sidewalk, somewhere, tomorrow, afternoon.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of
themselves and theones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful
to me.

Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the
crime after it happens (and often not very carefully either) and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to
take an tail whoopin'.

NHL Fever
Mar 24th 2009, 11:03 PM
I think it makes lots of sense. Try it this way:
The material I've read about Public Affairs methodology says that if you wish to amplify a belief in the public eye, present the view in a good light and an opposing middle ground view in a bad light. Any other middle ground opinions should be presented in a bad light, but only if you cannot compose at least 80 percent of your presentation on the subject of your original middle ground view. The opinion you most want to discourage must not be covered, if possible, or be presented in the worst possible terms.

I'm sure that's true, that's not my issue. My question is, apart from your ideology, what basis do you have to suspect this is occurring in Canada?


Lott and Mustard (1997), Kleck and Kates (1986), Wright and Rossi (1979) are the three most prominent studies ever, that I'm aware of. The 1997 study is the largest ever done, and if you go to Lott's website, he will allow you to download some of his data, or, at least he used to.

Two of the books mentioned in a previous post are the 1986 and 1997 studies.

They all will refute any claims that guns do more harm than good.
Yes, he still allows the data to be downloaded:
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

This site has a lecture from Kleck:
http://www.independent.org/events/detail.asp?eventID=24
While I can't read everything ever written on gun control, upon looking further into this, there is an active debate on both sides of the issue and lott's paper as well as his more recent book appear to be thoroughly refuted by Tim Lambert. http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/lott.pdf (http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/%7Elambert/guns/lott/lott.pdf)
After reading all the comments and responses published between these two, IMO theses are the biggest problems.
1) Despite new laws, almost nobody with a permit did not already carry a weapon, ie there was no real increase in carrying however there was a decrease in some crime statistics, and increases in others.
2) The decreases or increases in crime affected everybody regardless of their status as a carrier. If concealed carry really did prevent crime, it would do so in a way specific to thoe individuals, or those areas affected by the new laws, but it does not.
3) Lott says those more likely to be victims will be more likely to get permits. However Lott notes that the most common victim of crime is someone with a criminal record. That person would not be eligible for a permit. A study in 2000 by Hood and Neely showed that the areas with the highest crime rates had the lowest CC permit rates. Its makes sense that crime affects poor areas more, between people who know each other more. The same bad decision that got them into those situations, are the ones that prevent them from getting a permit.
4) To show that permit-holders don't cause problems, Lott refers to Dade county in which there were 12 instances of permit gun use and no injuries. What he ends up showing by accident, is that 12 instances of permit-gun use is excessively rare use, considering the 100 000 instances of violent crime in the same time period. So no, permit-use gun defenses are not common. Dade country violent crime rate was about 1000 per 100 000 people. The violent crime rate was therefore about 100x greater than the incidence of gun-use by a permit holder during a violent crime. There are numerous similar statistical absurdities in his paper.
5) Lott states that crime decrease in the areas he studied, but other models have showed that it increased. When other models were applied to Lott's data, different results were obtained. When Lott's model was applied to other data, different results were obtained. Essentially, his work cannot be replicated, even with the same data. These are red flags of the scientific method. Details in above article.
6) His methods reveal odd findings in other areas not related to guns. He says a 1% increase in the proportion of 40-49 year old black women associated with a 30% decrease in rapes and a 24% decrease in homicides. This is both senseless, and statistically impossible. If Lott's methodology produces such results on benign demographic data, why would I rely on it for other conclusions? This is indicative of the greater reliability of the study.

From what I can find, Lott has not addressed in any other publication the majority of the critical flaws in his conclusions as elucidated by Lambert's article.



Not at all. If your country hasn't reached a point in it's history when crime is a large burden, happy birthday! But if you think you can just say, "see, we're not like those crude American savages, let's go to tea" (while extending the correct pinky, of course), I think the future has a rude surprise for you.:lol:
The age of a nation is irrelevant to its crime rate. Its point in history is irrelevant to the success or failure of CC laws.



Really? Here is the breakdown of the same summary you reference:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708.pdf

1997 is the year Britain outlawed self-defense, I believe.

On page 46, number "1 murder", I see a 27 percent increase from 1997 to 2003. What do you see?

On page 46 next to the heading, "8b weapons possession", I see a 30 percent increase from 1997 to 2005. What do you see?

Same page at the bottom, "Total violence against persons", I see a 400 percent increase 1997 to 2007. What do you see?

I thought you liked raw data?
You have quoted the numbers that most reinforce your position, and ignored the others.

The murder rate went up until 2003, then declined to around 1997 levels by 2008. You stopped counting at 2003, clearly intentionally, and with no apparent reason.

Why remark about possession? Its common sense that with a new law banning handguns, there will be many new violators and therefore prosecutions. If you lower the speed limit to 50mph, there will be many more speeders as well. If you ban cigarettes, there will be a huge whack of cigarette possession charges.

Its also pretty obvious that decreasing serious crimes would result in those crimes becoming now less serious, therefore an increase in less serious crimes. This is a good thing.

You have greatly misrepresented this data. The entire point of gun control is to convert serious violence into less serious violence and therefore less deaths, because other weapons are not as effective as guns. That's exactly what this table shows. By complaining about increases in less serious violence, you make this point yourself. Note the largest increases in the category that makes up your 400% - less serious wounding, and assault without injury. That's what happens with a jealous spouse or angry friend + a knife/bat/fists/object, compared to the same + a gun. You also neglected to point out that 'most serious violence against the person' rose, and then fell back to similar levels as of recently. Why? - because of great changes in reporting that I previously described, and will do again further down.


So, they lie in the summary hoping you won't read or are too stupid to assess the numbers for yourself? Big surprise from England, NOT!
There's no need to call another nation or person stupid, its also a violation of the board rules.

You are wrong. The numbers are consistent with the findings of the main summary. Page 41 shows the reporting and recording trends of crime over time. In the periods you think crime went up, there was simply less crimes recorded vs those committed, as is clearly shown. In the later periods including more recently, there are actually more crimes recorded than reported. The result is an overall decrease in crime post gun laws.


Except for their wonderfully accurate (we hope) counting of the dead bodies, I would gladly agree with you.:rofl:
Dead bodies actually aren't that funny, as the Red Eye commentators discovered last night. The police counting at the time was off indeed, in favor of higher numbers. Now that its more accurate compared to BCS survey, the crime rates are actually lower in retrospect.


I disagree. If actual history cannot become statistical, no truth can ever come from statistics.
All your favorites authors use statistics, and understand why anecdotes are not the basis for anything. History cannot become statistics unless it is collected as such. There is no way to organize anecdotes into something useful apart from a theory-generator.


Also, the methodology is sound, as has been demonstrated, and verified with other studies.
It has not. The methodology is highly suspect, as Lambert describes. The main concern is that using different models with Lott's data gets different results. Furthermore using Lott's same methodology gets different, and sometimes absurd results when applied to other data. It is therefore flawed.


I have used the threat of a gun on eleven occasions, against individuals and groups of up to four. All successful, all unreported. When the aforementioned survey called me, I refused to participate, as did others that I've talked to. It never occurred to me that it could be important, at the time.:(
So what? Just as many people who have never used a gun may have refused to participate. Cuts both ways.


Again, I disagree. Check your own reference above, again: Acquaintance: 3465, Stranger: 1905, Unknown: 6750.

That's 12010 out of 14990, I'd say that is a majority. Even if you eliminate Acquaintance, it's 8655 and still a majority.
Think that over for a moment. There is no correlation between the numbers you quote, and the conclusion you draw from it. I think you have simply misunderstood the categories.

1) The fact that those three categories add up to 12010 out of 14990 does not support your point, and has no significance in this debate.
2) Unknown does not mean the relationship was with somebody unknown to the victim. It means that the relationship between victim and criminal is unknown. They may be acquainted, or they may not, the FBI does not know.
3) Of the total 14,990, the relationship is unknown in 6750, and known in 8240. Of the 8240, 1905 were strangers, 6335 (77%) were a relative, friend, neighbor or colleague.

77% of murder victims had a relationship with their killer, of those in whom the relationship is known. The majority of murders and other violent crimes occur between people who know each other. This is common knowledge to law enforcement, and true almost everywhere in the world. Even being ideologically driven, I don't see what would motivate you to deny that.


US has a high rate? OK, but ours has been dropping, and continues to drop even though we've increased our concealed carry rate every year since 1995.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html
In that table every single crime variable has decreased, including those that would not be affected by concealed carry laws such as auto theft, larceny, and property crime. Lott himself states that those crimes should actually increase according to his theory, because criminals would go for lower-risk crimes. When every indicator of crime goes down or up, its because of larger factors.


And what of Canada? Does Canada's rate go up every year? The statistics website is under repair.:hmm:
Seems to be working, although its poorly organized.


I know there are some that disagree, but, the real rule is: MORE GUNS LESS CRIME.
An opinion, not adequately supported by facts.


Estimated interdiction rates by gun owners run 1.4 million to 3.5 million per year. Re: Point Blank: Guns And Violence In America.
I previously explained why those estimates are faulty. A tiny sample size was used, of which the method if applied to other indicators shows statistically impossible results.


Not at all. Weapons and the ability to use them to overcome evil is a constant theme in the Bible. Not to mention commandments in the Law to kill all murderers and others committing certain offenses.
Actually the theme is dependence and trust in God. Sometimes with large armies, sometimes with only a few men ridiculously against the odds like Gideon. Sometimes with swords and sometimes absurdly with a slingshot and no armor like David. In one occasion regardless of the weapon, holding up the arms was key. For pharaoh, Moses show of force when he killed the abuser nearly destroyed his mission, and without so much as a dagger he prophesied the plagues onto egypt. There are as many verses taling about being weak as there are being strong, and utterly no consistent theme about being armed. In any case, even if there were, concealed carry laws are certainly not required to be so.


Jesus steps away from that not at all, but does increase slightly the rules of tolerance for minor offenses, such as slapping your face etc. Unfortunately, too much is assumed beyond the literal words of Christ.
Do you believe Christ's story of the seeds was meant literally? Are you reassured to have learned an important agricultural lesson from that parable and nothing else?


I disagree. He told His Followers to carry a sword, even if they had to trade their coat. He says that peace is made from armed men. He says good men do not tolerate home invasion. He instructed His followers to kill a murderer that attacks with a weapon using a weapon, their own.
None of those imply the necessity of concealed carry.
In any case he also said two swords was enough for 12 untrained commoners. And to turn the other cheek, and to pray for you enemy, and that the weak are blessed and will be made strong. He says the strong will be brought down and the wise made foolish, and he who lives by the sword dies by the sword. He says to depend on the Lord, not on your own strength, and that it is the role of government to exact justice.

If you take pro-gun theology as your first priority, and stuff the bible through it as secondary, the bible will constantly contradict itself. You have to see the bible as not about promoting guns or rebuking them, but as being about God.


If God needs an interpreter for His Word, He has wasted His Time, and ours.
Then I guess you object to pastors, the apostle Paul, and those those who translate the bible into English. I guess you've wated your time with the different versions of Dan11:22 that you quote below.


Sure. The Bible says the beast will take weapons away, and, destroy Christianity at the same time:

DAN 11:22 And the arms of the fighter shall be overcome before his face, and shall be broken; yea also the prince of the covenant.(Douay-Rehims)

DAN 11:22 And the arms of the flood shall be swept away from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.(Jewish Publication Society 1917 OT)

DAN 11:22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant. (King James Version)

The "wounded-head-of-the beast" will come and say, in effect, that, "muderers that kill with a weapon must not be killed with a weapon". This message, in my opinion, is the reason for the Holy Spirit rebuking the vision of the wounded-head by saying to John:

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
Strong's lexicon says the word 'arms' means most likely a literal arm in the original text.
It does not appear that any of those verses are talking about taking weaspons away. Furthermore, if they were, why would that be an argument for concealed carry?


I disagree:

1TIM 5:22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.

But if one became a vigilante, and didn't make any mistakes in identification of actual murderers, do you think God would punish him?
In our present circumstance yes, because God says the government delivers justice, and Jesus and Paul both say to be obedient to the law of the land which outlaws being a vigilante.


NUM 35:31 You shall not take money of him that is guilty of blood, but he shall die forthwith.
NUM 35:32 The banished and fugitives before the death of the high priest may by no means return into their own cities.
NUM 35:33 Defile not the land of your habitation, which is stained with the blood of the innocent: neither can it otherwise be expiated, but by his blood that hath shed the blood of another.
NUM 35:34 And thus shall your possession he cleansed, myself abiding with you. For I am the Lord that dwell among the children of Israel.
These are intructions for nation of Israel thousands of years ago. You are plucking out a few selected verse you like to live by. If you want to obey those, then why are you not obeying all Gods words for those people from that time?


In the lecture I posted above, Gary Kleck was just talking about how the burglary rate of Canada went up above the US's after your first "big wave of gun control twenty years ago".:rofl:
Its expected that gun control will decrease serious crime, and increase less serious crime, and that is a good thing.

Canada's burglary rate is 9/1000, the US is 7/1000, that's essentially the same. The US murder rate is 300% higher than Canada's. I'll take it. The burglary rate has decreased by about half since 1991, so I'm not sure which 'last 20 years' or 'big wave' Kleck is referring to.
This graph shows trend of a few nations over time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Statistics2.svg

Clavicula_Nox
Mar 25th 2009, 01:35 AM
Why isn't this in Contro, again?

dan
Mar 25th 2009, 10:38 AM
Why isn't this in Contro, again?

...Come on, I want everybody to see the stats he missed. Not to punish NHL but to demonstrate the government's uninhibited attitude. It's a great eye opener.

NHL Fever
Mar 25th 2009, 07:10 PM
...Come on, I want everybody to see the stats he missed. Not to punish NHL but to demonstrate the government's uninhibited attitude. It's a great eye opener.

You may have not read my most recent response. Your misunderstanding of the statistics was addressed.

Its not clear what the governments attitude would have to do with anything.

dan
Mar 26th 2009, 08:40 AM
You may have not read my most recent response. Your misunderstanding of the statistics was addressed.

Its not clear what the governments attitude would have to do with anything.

After reading all the comments and responses published between these two, IMO theses are the biggest problems.
1) Despite new laws, almost nobody with a permit did not already carry a weapon, ie there was no real increase in carrying however there was a decrease in some crime statistics, and increases in others.

Totally irrelevant. The most important thing to a legal ccw is that he is legal. The reason self-defense incidents are not reported is the prevalence of lawyers that love to build their political reputations on their prosecution of perceived "vigilantes".


2) The decreases or increases in crime affected everybody regardless of their status as a carrier. If concealed carry really did prevent crime, it would do so in a way specific to thoe individuals, or those areas affected by the new laws, but it does not.

OOh, I love that part. No, the reason everyone benefits is that the criminal is uncertain who is carrying, so he generally moves his operation to a no-ccw area or takes up a less risky operation. Part of Lott's conclusion, also.

Although, some public officials think it's fun to publish the names of ccw in their newspapers.


3) Lott says those more likely to be victims will be more likely to get permits. However Lott notes that the most common victim of crime is someone with a criminal record. That person would not be eligible for a permit. A study in 2000 by Hood and Neely showed that the areas with the highest crime rates had the lowest CC permit rates. Its makes sense that crime affects poor areas more, between people who know each other more. The same bad decision that got them into those situations, are the ones that prevent them from getting a permit.

Again, totally irrelevant. A criminal will carry a gun whether you say he can or not. That's why they call them criminals.

Also, there is no provision or intention to force anyone to carry. Perhaps, no need is perceived by the residents.


4) To show that permit-holders don't cause problems, Lott refers to Dade county in which there were 12 instances of permit gun use and no injuries. What he ends up showing by accident, is that 12 instances of permit-gun use is excessively rare use, considering the 100 000 instances of violent crime in the same time period. So no, permit-use gun defenses are not common. Dade country violent crime rate was about 1000 per 100 000 people. The violent crime rate was therefore about 100x greater than the incidence of gun-use by a permit holder during a violent crime. There are numerous similar statistical absurdities in his paper.

Sorry, but if the general population cannot see the need for their carrying of arms, why should you worry? I thought this part would make you happy.

Besides, most uses go unreported, remember?


5) Lott states that crime decrease in the areas he studied, but other models have showed that it increased. When other models were applied to Lott's data, different results were obtained. When Lott's model was applied to other data, different results were obtained. Essentially, his work cannot be replicated, even with the same data. These are red flags of the scientific method. Details in above article.

But the murder rate in the US is down 26 percent since 1995. Which is when we had ten states start ccw all at once.

Meanwhile, since 1971, or thereabouts, we've increased firearms in public hands by 170 million. Shouldn't we have much more murder, according to your theory?


6) His methods reveal odd findings in other areas not related to guns. He says a 1% increase in the proportion of 40-49 year old black women associated with a 30% decrease in rapes and a 24% decrease in homicides. This is both senseless, and statistically impossible. If Lott's methodology produces such results on benign demographic data, why would I rely on it for other conclusions? This is indicative of the greater reliability of the study.

Actually, there were real FBI/UCR stats showing a 26 percent decrease, once upon a time. So, I wouldn't call it impossible.

Unless the FBI falsified the stats.


From what I can find, Lott has not addressed in any other publication the majority of the critical flaws in his conclusions as elucidated by Lambert's article.

I'll look.


The age of a nation is irrelevant to its crime rate. Its point in history is irrelevant to the success or failure of CC laws.

Perhaps, but maybe, in Canada's case, it's a matter of climate, not age. Or, in the case of the criminal, lack of desperation. The pickings are easier, and richer, in the US.


You have quoted the numbers that most reinforce your position, and ignored the others.

Did you think I'd not try to support my position?


The murder rate went up until 2003, then declined to around 1997 levels by 2008. You stopped counting at 2003, clearly intentionally, and with no apparent reason.

I was hoping you'd mention that, actually. You see, this is a symptom of England's disease. It is unprepared and, in my view, unconcerned about the increase in crime. So, it takes several years to bring the stats down with more police, and of course, more taxes.


Why remark about possession? Its common sense that with a new law banning handguns, there will be many new violators and therefore prosecutions. If you lower the speed limit to 50mph, there will be many more speeders as well. If you ban cigarettes, there will be a huge whack of cigarette possession charges.

Yes, that's another symptom that some sociologists miss, all the time. The reason possession of weapons is up, is the criminal sees a great new advantage the government has given him. "No one's allowed to hurt the bad guys now."


You have greatly misrepresented this data. The entire point of gun control is to convert serious violence into less serious violence and therefore less deaths, because other weapons are not as effective as guns. That's exactly what this table shows. By complaining about increases in less serious violence, you make this point yourself. Note the largest increases in the category that makes up your 400% - less serious wounding, and assault without injury. That's what happens with a jealous spouse or angry friend + a knife/bat/fists/object, compared to the same + a gun. You also neglected to point out that 'most serious violence against the person' rose, and then fell back to similar levels as of recently. Why? - because of great changes in reporting that I previously described, and will do again further down.

So, it's supposed to be ok to break into a person's house and rough them up a bit as long as no one gets hurt seriously? Maybe your right, it's only a 400 percent increase.


You are wrong. The numbers are consistent with the findings of the main summary. Page 41 shows the reporting and recording trends of crime over time. In the periods you think crime went up, there was simply less crimes recorded vs those committed, as is clearly shown. In the later periods including more recently, there are actually more crimes recorded than reported. The result is an overall decrease in crime post gun laws.

Some people think that's how New York City lowered it's crime rate: Recording crimes that weren't committed, and later, not recording crimes committed.

Maybe they learned it from England.


It has not. The methodology is highly suspect, as Lambert describes. The main concern is that using different models with Lott's data gets different results. Furthermore using Lott's same methodology gets different, and sometimes absurd results when applied to other data. It is therefore flawed.

So, where is the "superior" study with superior methodology?

The reason it hasn't been done is that it can't be done.


So what? Just as many people who have never used a gun may have refused to participate. Cuts both ways.

In studies, perhaps, but in the criminal's mind, the ones that I threatened, I was at least a failure, and possibly, a near death experience.


Think that over for a moment. There is no correlation between the numbers you quote, and the conclusion you draw from it. I think you have simply misunderstood the categories.
1) The fact that those three categories add up to 12010 out of 14990 does not support your point, and has no significance in this debate.
2) Unknown does not mean the relationship was with somebody unknown to the victim. It means that the relationship between victim and criminal is unknown. They may be acquainted, or they may not, the FBI does not know.
3) Of the total 14,990, the relationship is unknown in 6750, and known in 8240. Of the 8240, 1905 were strangers, 6335 (77%) were a relative, friend, neighbor or colleague.

77% of murder victims had a relationship with their killer, of those in whom the relationship is known. The majority of murders and other violent crimes occur between people who know each other. This is common knowledge to law enforcement, and true almost everywhere in the world. Even being ideologically driven, I don't see what would motivate you to deny that.

The fact that the witness's statement verifying the relationship is usually something like: "I remember him. He used to buy drugs here all the time".


In that table every single crime variable has decreased, including those that would not be affected by concealed carry laws such as auto theft, larceny, and property crime. Lott himself states that those crimes should actually increase according to his theory, because criminals would go for lower-risk crimes. When every indicator of crime goes down or up, its because of larger factors.

Part of Lott's conclusion includes movement of the criminal activities to a safer location. So, assuming that all criminals don't prefer to stay exclusively with one type of crime, and many do have several specialties, many categories of crime will drop. What's so difficult about that?


Seems to be working, although its poorly organized.

Really? Give me their website, please.


An opinion, not adequately supported by facts.

Remember, in the cited table above, all categories were down. And, I will add, have stayed down.


I previously explained why those estimates are faulty. A tiny sample size was used, of which the method if applied to other indicators shows statistically impossible results.

Until you can show a corresponding increase in crime to somehow match the increase in firearms publicly possessed, I think all your views are just wishful thinking. And, still, not one study that contradicts the "highly suspect" study. Only miniscule criticisms that claim a big impact.


Actually the theme is dependence and trust in God. Sometimes with large armies, sometimes with only a few men ridiculously against the odds like Gideon. Sometimes with swords and sometimes absurdly with a slingshot and no armor like David. In one occasion regardless of the weapon, holding up the arms was key. For pharaoh, Moses show of force when he killed the abuser nearly destroyed his mission, and without so much as a dagger he prophesied the plagues onto egypt. There are as many verses taling about being weak as there are being strong, and utterly no consistent theme about being armed. In any case, even if there were, concealed carry laws are certainly not required to be so.

But, again, to be legally armed, for a law abiding person, is everything. And socially, an openly armed person is not accepted, always. So, concealed arms. Terrorism demands it, if for no other reason.


Do you believe Christ's story of the seeds was meant literally? Are you reassured to have learned an important agricultural lesson from that parable and nothing else?

While I meditate on that one, let me say that in this following passage, I know who is most likely not to be taken by the sword, if it is His Will: The armed man.

IS 65:12 Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.

Only an unarmed man bows down to be slaughtered, IMO.


None of those imply the necessity of concealed carry.

Really? Remember the table that had all categories of crime reduced?

Do you remember me relating the fact that 26 times Israelis have beaten terrorists using AK's and grenades with concealed pistols?

All with concealed weapons. Because a terrorist will always kill anyone carrying openly before mounting his main attack, according to the Jerusalem Police Chief.


He says the strong will be brought down and the wise made foolish.

All the so-called wise men, of our age, tell us to disarm ourselves. That would be foolish, IMO, so, I won't.


and he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Yes, but He meant for that moment in history only, not always.


He says to depend on the Lord, not on your own strength,

Yes, He said to obtain a weapon, also, and I have. I figured I would obey so I wouldn't have to rely on my own strength, especially as I age.


and that it is the role of government to exact justice.

I wasn't planning on exacting justice, just preventing a disaster.


If you take pro-gun theology as your first priority, and stuff the bible through it as secondary, the bible will constantly contradict itself. You have to see the bible as not about promoting guns or rebuking them, but as being about God.

Not at all. It the Bible that tells us to get a weapon, and defend your home and family. The Bible says peace is brought to a home by an armed man, and not to tolerate a burglary. But, I do see your words in many others mouths.


Then I guess you object to pastors, the apostle Paul, and those those who translate the bible into English. I guess you've wated your time with the different versions of Dan11:22 that you quote below.

Not at all, a time for every purpose, as the Good Book says.

Wasted my time? I don't think so. Maybe you will not change, but others will read this, I hope.


Strong's lexicon says the word 'arms' means most likely a literal arm in the original text.
It does not appear that any of those verses are talking about taking weaspons away. Furthermore, if they were, why would that be an argument for concealed carry?

I'm also one of those people that believes that the Bible is written for the end times people, not the people of Strong's time. So, he would have to be wrong about that.

The end times has brought terrorism. Terrorism has a certain set of tactics. All tactics have counter tactics. Concealed carry is the counter-tactic for terrorism.

You see that "arms" is also used in the US Constitution? A match made in heaven.


In our present circumstance yes, because God says the government delivers justice, and Jesus and Paul both say to be obedient to the law of the land which outlaws being a vigilante.

Then why tell us that an armed man brings peace to a home? Why say that you should not tolerate a burglary? Unless, you really meant it, perhaps it was a joke, as God does not change. No, it has been that way since the beginning.


These are intructions for nation of Israel thousands of years ago. You are plucking out a few selected verse you like to live by. If you want to obey those, then why are you not obeying all Gods words for those people from that time?

Have you not read the Bible? "Love God", and "love your neighbor", are the two great Commandments. All the Law and the Prophets are fulfilled by these. You are obeying God's Words from that time.


Canada's burglary rate is 9/1000, the US is 7/1000, that's essentially the same. The US murder rate is 300% higher than Canada's. I'll take it.

So will I. We are only three times higher? That's all? We have ten times the population. You should have one-tenth our murder rate, not one third. Or, perhaps, we should have ten times yours. Must be the guns.

NHL Fever
Mar 27th 2009, 01:48 PM
Totally irrelevant. The most important thing to a legal ccw is that he is legal. The reason self-defense incidents are not reported is the prevalence of lawyers that love to build their political reputations on their prosecution of perceived "vigilantes".

You missed the point. If there was no change in the cc rate, but there was a real change in crime statistics, it means the weapons were not the reason.


OOh, I love that part. No, the reason everyone benefits is that the criminal is uncertain who is carrying, so he generally moves his operation to a no-ccw area or takes up a less risky operation. Part of Lott's conclusion, also.
But the statistics do not show that, they show that all crimes went down. Lott says the less risky ones should go up, and that we will see that in the statistics. The criminal activity in the new area should still show up in the stats just as well as it did in the old area.


Again, totally irrelevant. A criminal will carry a gun whether you say he can or not. That's why they call them criminals.
I know that, that's not the point I was making. My observation was that Lott says the most likely victims will be the most likely to get permits, which is false, because the most likely victims are also criminals, who cannot get permits. I am criticizing his statement as factually wrong.


Sorry, but if the general population cannot see the need for their carrying of arms, why should you worry? I thought this part would make you happy.
Again missed the point. Lott and yourself say that CC permit holders prevent violent crime quite often, but his own Dade county data (which he uses to make a different point) shows that its in fact a tiny fraction of the total violent incidents. There is a contradiction between his different claims.


But the murder rate in the US is down 26 percent since 1995. Which is when we had ten states start ccw all at once.
Along with a decrease in almost every crime, including the ones Lott says will increase.


Meanwhile, since 1971, or thereabouts, we've increased firearms in public hands by 170 million. Shouldn't we have much more murder, according to your theory?
In the 1997 paper, Lott refers to a study which showed that in texas, something like 97% of people who buy firearms already have them, so their is a minimal increase in actual proportion of people on the street with a CC.


Actually, there were real FBI/UCR stats showing a 26 percent decrease, once upon a time. So, I wouldn't call it impossible.
Again, that goes for all crime. According to Lott, some crime should go up. When every crime rate changes, its because of larger factors. You can only attribute a change in crime rate to CC if its a change in only crimes that would be affected by CC.


Perhaps, but maybe, in Canada's case, it's a matter of climate, not age. Or, in the case of the criminal, lack of desperation. The pickings are easier, and richer, in the US.
Speculation.

You theory on pickings is thoroughly illogical:
1) As I previously pointed out, and you yourself pointed out, criminals will only be tempted by accessible targets, which is a function of wealth density, not absolute wealth. Canada is equal or greater to the states in terms of wealth density. If New York earns a certain amount of GDP, that means nothing because a robber cannot hit every home in New York. What matters is the wealth in a given home, or the average home. That measurement is very similar between the US and Canada.
2) According to you, the pickings would not be easier in the states as a function of the public packing heat.
3) Wealth does not increase crime, it decreases crime, as everyone knows. Wealthier countries have less crime than poor ones, wealthy areas within wealthy countries have less crime than poor areas. Wealthy people commit less crime than poor people. Wealthy people are less frequently victims than poor people. Do you really dispute this?



I was hoping you'd mention that, actually. You see, this is a symptom of England's disease. It is unprepared and, in my view, unconcerned about the increase in crime. So, it takes several years to bring the stats down with more police, and of course, more taxes.
As I mentioned many times now, England's change is related to a clear change in how effectively crime was recorded over time, which actually shows a decrease in violent crime after the gun ban.


Yes, that's another symptom that some sociologists miss, all the time. The reason possession of weapons is up, is the criminal sees a great new advantage the government has given him. "No one's allowed to hurt the bad guys now."
Who cares what they think. If the violent crime rate drops, that's good.


So, it's supposed to be ok to break into a person's house and rough them up a bit as long as no one gets hurt seriously? Maybe your right, it's only a 400 percent increase.
1) As explained, the recording differences account for part of this.
2) John Lott expects and wants this kind of increase with pro cc laws, for him it shows a shift to lower risk crimes. You condemn this shift, and apparently think opposite of him on this issue. The difference here, and the whole point, is that we get John Lott's predictions by doing the opposite of what he recommends.



Some people think that's how New York City lowered it's crime rate: Recording crimes that weren't committed, and later, not recording crimes committed.

Maybe they learned it from England. Well some people think aliens have visited us. The data we actually have as recording by the BCS, shows a improvement in recording crime over time, with a corresponding increase in recorded crimes.


So, where is the "superior" study with superior methodology?

The reason it hasn't been done is that it can't be done.
Evidently you did not read the article I referenced, after previously wanting me to read a whole list of books. That is what I would call a double-standard. The alternative methodologies are discussed, along with the impossible results you get by applying Lott's methodology to other situations.


In studies, perhaps, but in the criminal's mind, the ones that I threatened, I was at least a failure, and possibly, a near death experience.
Studies are how you make policy. Anecdotes are anecdotes.


The fact that the witness's statement verifying the relationship is usually something like: "I remember him. He used to buy drugs here all the time".
Your opinion, the table you reference shows nothing to back that up.


Part of Lott's conclusion includes movement of the criminal activities to a safer location. So, assuming that all criminals don't prefer to stay exclusively with one type of crime, and many do have several specialties, many categories of crime will drop. What's so difficult about that?
I'm not sure, but you're having difficult with it as it seems you don't understand Lott's position. He says that if criminals have many crime 'specialties' as you put it, will ccw they will do more of the lower risk crimes, not do less of every crime.


Really? Give me their website, please.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050721/dq050721a-eng.htm


Remember, in the cited table above, all categories were down. And, I will add, have stayed down.
Which means CCW laws had nothing to do with it, since they should, according to Lott, cause a decrease in CCW-specific crimes, and an increas in other crimes.


Until you can show a corresponding increase in crime to somehow match the increase in firearms publicly possessed, I think all your views are just wishful thinking. And, still, not one study that contradicts the "highly suspect" study. Only miniscule criticisms that claim a big impact.
Earlier you were wondering which other statistical method is better than what Lott used. This tells me two things; you have little or no formal training with statistics, and you did not read Lambert's article. Having not read it, how would you know how miniscule it is? Furthermore, how can you claim to understand the gun control issue if you read only one side of the debate. That's like hamas militants who claim to understand the Israel-Palestine conflict when they have only listened to their mosque preachers their whole life.

As one example for your query, I have already shown in a previous post, how the crime went actually increased in Kennesaw after they enacted their mandatory gun law.


But, again, to be legally armed, for a law abiding person, is everything. And socially, an openly armed person is not accepted, always. So, concealed arms. Terrorism demands it, if for no other reason.
You yourself have claimed that their are many more firearms today than in the past. Yet you have more frequent and more dramatic terrorist attacks now than before. By your logic, the conclusion would be that more guns means more terrorist attacks, not less.


IS 65:12 Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.

Only an unarmed man bows down to be slaughtered, IMO.
You must be kidding me. That verse is talking about God slaughtering people, not criminals. You are suggesting that being armed would prevent one from bowing to the slaughter of God. Sorry, no weapon that can be formed can defend against God, although I'm sure pro-gun advocates would suggest otherwise.

Here is the actual context of that verse, which you misrepresented.

Is 65:11 But you [are] those who forsake the LORD, Who forget My holy mountain, Who prepare a table for Gad, [fn] (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&c=65&t=NKJV#fnt/11_1) And who furnish a drink offering for Meni. [fn] (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&c=65&t=NKJV#fnt/11_2)
Is 65:12 Therefore I will number you for the sword, And you shall all bow down to the slaughter; Because, when I called, you did not answer; When I spoke, you did not hear, But did evil before My eyes, And chose [that] in which I do not delight."
Is 65:13 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, My servants shall eat, But you shall be hungry; Behold, My servants shall drink, But you shall be thirsty; Behold, My servants shall rejoice, But you shall be ashamed;

Why will they be slaughtered? Because they forsake the Lord.


Do you remember me relating the fact that 26 times Israelis have beaten terrorists using AK's and grenades with concealed pistols?
No, source?

Israelis have mandatory, near universal training in weaspons use, because they are all in the army. Americans are not. Isralies are an educated, wealthy people, with government sponsored post-secondary education and various socialist support systems including national healthcare. These strongly decrease crime, and promote a society of people who not only have common ground, but strong reasoning and discipline. The US has widely divergent values amoungst its people, a sizeable percentage of the population in poverty, no common military training, and no government support for health or further education. The results on each society are self-evident.


Yes, but He meant for that moment in history only, not always.
I see, so when an OT verse is convenient to your argument, its for all time. When it contradicts you, that means it was only for that time.


Yes, He said to obtain a weapon, also, and I have. I figured I would obey so I wouldn't have to rely on my own strength, especially as I age.
You must be reading the NRA bible, which says "Trust in your concealed sidearm, and lean not on your own understanding."

In no circumstance does the bible specifically call on you to obtain a weapon. In some places God's people were armed, in others they were not, therefore the argument is equally strong both ways. Even if you actually believe Jesus purpose was to endorse weaspons, he says get a sword, not a gun.


I wasn't planning on exacting justice, just preventing a disaster.
That contradicts the verse you offered, which said to kill murderers. Why leave that to the police and courts?, why are you not out killing murderers?


Not at all. It the Bible that tells us to get a weapon, and defend your home and family. The Bible says peace is brought to a home by an armed man, and not to tolerate a burglary. But, I do see your words in many others mouths.
It also says if you live by the sword you will die by it. It also says you can have numerous wives. It also says you should die if you eat certain foods. It also says you should obey a host of sacrifice routines. It also says to stone people in your community caught in adultery. It also says to send your wife away during her period. It also says you should be killed if you disobey your parents. But you aren't doing any of those commands by God, for some reason you only want to obey a tiny number of selected OT verses, and not the others.


I'm also one of those people that believes that the Bible is written for the end times people, not the people of Strong's time. So, he would have to be wrong about that.
By what reasoning do you beleive you can translate the meaning of biblical words better than someone who knows he language, and has devoted their entire life to helping translate it?


The end times has brought terrorism. Terrorism has a certain set of tactics. All tactics have counter tactics. Concealed carry is the counter-tactic for terrorism.
If you think CC can stop the end times, you are dreaming.


Then why tell us that an armed man brings peace to a home? Why say that you should not tolerate a burglary? Unless, you really meant it, perhaps it was a joke, as God does not change. No, it has been that way since the beginning.
Have you not read the Bible? "Love God", and "love your neighbor", are the two great Commandments. All the Law and the Prophets are fulfilled by these. You are obeying God's Words from that time.

If God does not change, why are you not offereing animal sacrifices for your sins? Why do you eat pork? God's words from the OT were not good enough for you?


So will I. We are only three times higher? That's all? We have ten times the population. You should have one-tenth our murder rate, not one third. Or, perhaps, we should have ten times yours. Must be the guns.My goodness. Obviously, I'm using per capita numbers, that's what a rate is. For the sake of your understanding, the US murder rate is 30 times that of Canada.

Let me spell it out again to avoid confusion. The US has about 30 murders for every murder in Canada, with ten times the population. That means a 3-fold higher murder rate.





In America, the horse is in some ways, out of the barn. My proposal for a US solution is therefore one of two options:
1) Ban the manufacture of firearms except for armed forces and police. This will cause the influx of new weapons into society to drop to near zero. Nearly all concealable weapons in north America and south America are manufactured in the US. There is no evidence that in modern nations which do not legally manufacture, that there is any significant amount of home-made concealable weapons being made. Continue to allow the legal purchase of currently available legal weapons, and the legal ownership and/or carrying of those weapons. When criminals are arrested, their guns will be confiscated and destroyed. With no new guns being manufactured, it will become increasingly difficult for criminals to obtain weapons regardless of what the law is. Legal owners however will have no risk of having their weapon confiscated. Over time, more and more guns will wear out or be confiscated. Every time a criminal loses his weapon, he must obtain another one from a smaller supply. Law-abiding owners do not have that problem, because they are not losing their weapons. Over time, it will produce a shift in the proportion of gun owners in favor of law-abiding owners.

2) Greatly restrict the quota of guns that can be manufactured in a year to a level that is say half or a quarter of the amount confiscated from criminals in a year. This would essentially work the same way as plan 1, with the exception that this makes it slightly less difficult for previously non-carrying law-abiders to obtain a weapon for the first time. That includes law abiders who decide they now want a weapon, or those who always wanted one but are only now coming of age to legally own one.

In both plans, it would become more costly to obtain a weapon, illegally or legally. While this increases the effort required for anyone who wants a gun, it favors hard working income earning law abiders. Just as illegal drugs are more poisoiness than legal drugs, and illegal prostitutes carry more disease than legal prostitutes, illegal guns in either case would be more broken down and unreliable than legal guns because there is no regulation or quality standard in the black market. This again favor law-abiders, who would be more likely to have guns in good working order in plan 1, or new guns in plan 2 by consequence of availability. In either plan, it would eventually become more difficult for anyone to obtain a gun, but the effect would be felt far earlier and more sharply for illegal carriers.

NHL Fever
Mar 27th 2009, 03:19 PM
I'll be back in a few weeks to address any other responses.

dan
Apr 1st 2009, 02:20 PM
You missed the point. If there was no change in the cc rate, but there was a real change in crime statistics, it means the weapons were not the reason.

Not true. If the reporting rate stays the same as before the ccw law.

Also, it's possible that all the aspects of the effects of ccw were not apparent.:idea:


But the statistics do not show that, they show that all crimes went down. Lott says the less risky ones should go up, and that we will see that in the statistics. The criminal activity in the new area should still show up in the stats just as well as it did in the old area.

Perhaps, the increased risk was perceived as being so great, the criminals went straight (as in "gave up their criminal enterprises")!:lol:

Are you saying that the law-abiding citizen was carrying illegally before the ccw law passed? That's possible. But how could they be certain?


I know that, that's not the point I was making. My observation was that Lott says the most likely victims will be the most likely to get permits, which is false, because the most likely victims are also criminals, who cannot get permits. I am criticizing his statement as factually wrong.

Factually wrong? How about "unanticipated". The effect was greater than expected.

If the criminals were only killing each other I'm afraid I'd just lie back and enjoy it.

Maybe that's it. The criminals are concentrating on each other more, and succeeding in lowering their own numbers.


Again missed the point. Lott and yourself say that CC permit holders prevent violent crime quite often, but his own Dade county data (which he uses to make a different point) shows that its in fact a tiny fraction of the total violent incidents. There is a contradiction between his different claims.

But the rate is lower than the rate of police officers that commit crimes with guns, so I don't see the significance.


Along with a decrease in almost every crime, including the ones Lott says will increase.
In the 1997 paper, Lott refers to a studywhich showed that in texas, something like 97% of people who buy firearms already have them, so their is a minimal increase in actual proportion of people on the street with a CC.

OK, but that obviously happened in some jurisdictions, at least initially. Why argue with success, just 'cause the long term effect didn't pan out?

Big difference between owning and carrying.


Again, that goes for all crime. According to Lott, some crime should go up. When every crime rate changes, its because of larger factors.
You can only attribute a change in crime rate to CC if its a change in only crimes that would be affected by CC.

Actually, I believe that he did see indications in at least two areas.


You theory on pickings is thoroughly illogical:
1) As I previously pointed out, and you yourself pointed out, criminals will only be tempted by accessible targets, which is a function of wealth density, not absolute wealth. Canada is equal or greater to the states in terms of wealth density. If New York earns a certain amount of GDP, that means nothing because a robber cannot hit every home in New York. What matters is the wealth in a given home, or the average home. That measurement is very similar between the US and Canada.

I still believe that, when it comes to the baubles and gadgets that a criminal can sell, we have more.


2) According to you, the pickings would not be easier in the states as a function of the public packing heat.

But, if the public will not carry, the criminal will, eventually, perceive it, and we will go backwards.


3) Wealth does not increase crime, it decreases crime, as everyone knows. Wealthier countries have less crime than poor ones, wealthy areas within wealthy countries have less crime than poor areas. Wealthy people commit less crime than poor people. Wealthy people are less frequently victims than poor people. Do you really dispute this?

Perhaps, as a general rule, that is correct. But, wealth attracts all sorts of bad types that try to acquire your wealth by unsavory means. At least, at this latitude.


As I mentioned many times now, England's change is related to a clear change in how effectively crime was recorded over time, which actually shows a decrease in violent crime after the gun ban.
Who cares what they think. If the violent crime rate drops, that's good.

So, you are saying that crime was actually, perhaps, 600 percent greater in years past that showed a lower rate? But, now, it's merely equal to the inaccurate assumptions of the past? Well, if your really sure.:lol:


1) As explained, the recording differences account for part of this.
2) John Lott expects and wants this kind of increase with pro cc laws, for him it shows a shift to lower risk crimes. You condemn this shift, and apparently think opposite of him on this issue. The difference here, and the whole point, is that we get John Lott's predictions by doing the opposite of what he recommends.

If you say so. You lost 300 extra lives in England doing it that way. Why would anyone want to increase the murder rate to, hopefully, acquire a lower one, when you can get a steady decline our way? Plus, our way is cheaper. No increased taxes for more police.


Well some people think aliens have visited us. The data we actually have as recording by the BCS, shows a improvement in recording crime over time, with a corresponding increase in recorded crimes.
Evidently you did not read the article I referenced, after previously wanting me to read a whole list of books. That is what I would call a double-standard. The alternative methodologies are discussed, along with the impossible results you get by applying Lott's methodology to other situations.

I wait with bated breath for academia to save us from ourselves.:lol:


Your opinion, the table you reference shows nothing to back that up.
I'm not sure, but you're having difficult with it as it seems you don't understand Lott's position. He says that if criminals have many crime 'specialties' as you put it, will ccw they will do more of the lower risk crimes, not do less of every crime.

I don't recall anyone claiming Dr. Lott was perfect, or an all-seeing entity. I don't blame him for missing the exact effect of the ccw law, especially since it seems to be greater than anticipated.


http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050721/dq050721a-eng.htm

That doesn't give me a good breakdown. Only a brief explanation for what happened, according to someones assessment, in 2004.

Is Canada afraid to publish their stats?


You must be kidding me. That verse is talking about God slaughtering people, not criminals. You are suggesting that being armed would prevent one from bowing to the slaughter of God. Sorry, no weapon that can be formed can defend against God, although I'm sure pro-gun advocates would suggest otherwise.
Here is the actual context of that verse, which you misrepresented.

Is 65:11 But you [are] those who forsake the LORD, Who forget My holy mountain, Who prepare a table for Gad, [fn] (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&c=65&t=NKJV#fnt/11_1) And who furnish a drink offering for Meni. [fn] (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&c=65&t=NKJV#fnt/11_2)
Is 65:12 Therefore I will number you for the sword, And you shall all bow down to the slaughter; Because, when I called, you did not answer; When I spoke, you did not hear, But did evil before My eyes, And chose [that] in which I do not delight."
Is 65:13 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, My servants shall eat, But you shall be hungry; Behold, My servants shall drink, But you shall be thirsty; Behold, My servants shall rejoice, But you shall be ashamed;

Why will they be slaughtered? Because they forsake the Lord.

Only partially correct. They will be slaughtered because they chose that in which He does not delight. Because He has given us His Word and we don't obey.

How about one more?

AMOS 9:10 All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us.


No, source?

Jerusalem Post interview with the Chief Of Police of that city, December 2000.


I see, so when an OT verse is convenient to your argument, its for all time. When it contradicts you, that means it was only for that time.
You must be reading the NRA bible, which says "Trust in your concealed sidearm, and lean not on your own understanding."

No, not at all. The verse is about a certain event in Jesus' life, and, there are three other people that wrote about His life, therefore, if you want to get the whole picture, you should add the other viewpoints. Didn't you just admonish me about this?

Observe:

JN 18:8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:
JN 18:9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
JN 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.
JN 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

You see? He was required to fulfill prophecy by not allowing a fight that would have resulted in the death of a precious Apostle.


In no circumstance does the bible specifically call on you to obtain a weapon. In some places God's people were armed, in others they were not, therefore the argument is equally strong both ways. Even if you actually believe Jesus purpose was to endorse weaspons, he says get a sword, not a gun.

Oh, please. Jesus could not be allowed to introduce a specific futuristic concept like that (a gun). But He does say get a sword. Don't you read the Bible?

LK 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.


It also says if you live by the sword you will die by it. It also says you can have numerous wives. It also says you should die if you eat certain foods. It also says you should obey a host of sacrifice routines. It also says to stone people in your community caught in adultery. It also says to send your wife away during her period. It also says you should be killed if you disobey your parents. But you aren't doing any of those commands by God, for some reason you only want to obey a tiny number of selected OT verses, and not the others.

Because I have read the Bible, and it explains everything you mentioned.


By what reasoning do you beleive you can translate the meaning of biblical words better than someone who knows he language, and has devoted their entire life to helping translate it?

God has said that He has told us about the end times from the beginning.
God has said that He has given us His Word to speak, we only need to recite it faithfully.
I just believe what He said.


If you think CC can stop the end times, you are dreaming.

Not stop, but rather, allow us to be in concert with how He wants us to believe and live.


If God does not change, why are you not offereing animal sacrifices for your sins? Why do you eat pork? God's words from the OT were not good enough for you?

Because, when you read the Bible, you see this:

ACTS 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
ACTS 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

These are the rules for the Gentiles, and, as far as I'm aware, I'm not a Jew.


My goodness. Obviously, I'm using per capita numbers, that's what a rate is. For the sake of your understanding, the US murder rate is 30 times that of Canada.Let me spell it out again to avoid confusion. The US has about 30 murders for every murder in Canada, with ten times the population. That means a 3-fold higher murder rate.

Too bad I can't access Canada's stats. I could see for myself.:idea:

dan
Apr 14th 2009, 03:00 AM
...Someone check to see if they get another site other than what I describe here, and post their findings? The original post sent me here:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050721/dq050721a-eng.htm


Quote:
Originally Posted by NHL Fever View Post
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quoti...50721a-eng.htm
Quote

That doesn't give me a good breakdown. Only a brief explanation for what happened, according to someones assessment, in 2004.

Is Canada afraid to publish their stats?

dan
Apr 18th 2009, 05:31 PM
...To make it's stats available may have something to do with their current research:lol::

George Jonas: Want a gun permit? tell us about your sex life
Posted: April 15, 2009, 9:00 AM by NP Editor

...Pierre Lemieux is an economist whose most recent book, Comprendre líťconomie, just won the prestigious Prix Turgot in Paris. When it comes to guns, heís a hobbyist, not a lobbyist, but in his spare time he has been trying to make the authorities comprehend something about the relationship between public safety and his love life. Not because he thinks thereís a nexus, but because the government does.

Before renewing his gun permit in 2007, the authorities decided to inquire into Lemieuxís bedroom history. Did he divorce anyone in the last two years? Did he break up with a girlfriend? If yes, use a separate sheet to explain.

Pardon me? Explain?

Well, it was nothing personal. Apparently, Canadaís government feels it ought to know the romantic status of all firearm owners. Hmm. Didnít someone say the state had no business in the nationís bedrooms? Who would say something so fuddy-duddy? Oh, the same fellow who actually said fuddy-duddy: Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Well, that was before the Flood.

It could be worse, I suppose. Canadaís gun clerks could ask applicants if they suffer from erectile dysfunction. Perhaps clerks donít ask because they worry about a human rights tribunal finding the question discriminatory. Or maybe they havenít thought of it yet.

Anyway, when the governmentís minions popped their question in 2007, Prof. Lemieux made his reply directly to the Prime Minister: ďYou will note that, as a proud descendant of the disobedient French Canadian coureurs de bois,Ē he wrote, ďI have not answered one of the [permit renewal] formís indiscreet and obscene questions. I answered that my love affairs are none of your business.Ē

I doubt if Stephen Harper saw the letter ó his office tries to shield him both from coureurs de bois and economists ó but when I saw a copy, I wrote: ďAtta boy, Pierre. It may not do much good, but cowering like mice before the insolence of office, as Shakespeare called it, wonít do much good either.Ē

Indeed, it didnít. The authorities refused to renew the professorís permit, and now heís challenging them in court. But why are the authorities treating firearms owners like circus animals, making them jump through humiliating hoops? For public safety? Hell, for safety, gun ownership among professors should be encouraged, not discouraged.

The year Canada demanded to peek into Lemieuxís bedroom, a deranged young man named Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people at Virginia Tech. The 23-year-old Korean nutcase might have claimed more victims if it hadnít been for 76-year-old Liviu Librescu, a visiting professor from Israel who blocked Cho from entering his classroom while students escaped through the windows. Librescu may have stopped the killer for good had he been armed, but he wasnít, and paid for his intervention with his life.

After the massacre, The Wall Street Journal quoted Professor Lemieux as saying that ďmass killings were rare when guns were easily available, while they have been increasing as guns have become more controlled.Ē

A reverse trend in America supported the Canadian scholarís observation. A national survey conducted in 1996 by the University of Chicago found a reduction of crime rates in states that permitted citizens to carry concealed weapons (homicide by 8.5%, aggravated assault 7% and rape 5%.) Not surprisingly, the number of ďcarryingĒ states grew from nine in 1988 to 31 in 1996.

Lemieux should win his court challenge in a sane world ó but in a sane world there would be no government intrusions to challenge in the first place. The challenge arises because ours is an insane world, with temporary remissions during which we write constitutions and bills of rights ó then lapse back into lunacy and plead with judges to abort whatever embryonic issues are left over from our one-night stands with liberty.

Whatís Canada doing in Pierre Lemieuxís bedroom? Questioning citizens about their romantic lives as a condition of a firearm permit is so obviously removed from any legitimate consideration of public safety that I wonít dignify it with analysis. Iíll merely say that people likely to shoot their exes or spouses are also likely to (1) check the wrong box on government forms to keep their permits, or (2) shoot their significant others with guns whose permits have expired.

Such forms are good only for giving award-winning academics apoplexy and reminding the rest of us that Big Nanny is boss. Also, to demonstrate that Canadaís legacy is passing from the proud descendants of voyageurs to the leering descendants of voyeurs. For shame.
National Post

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/04/15/george-jonas-want-a-gun-permit-tell-us-about-your-sex-life.aspx

RenaissanceMan
Apr 19th 2009, 08:02 PM
John Lott, Jr. wrote a wonderful book whose title tells you all you need to know: "More Guns, Less Crime"

Ascension
Apr 20th 2009, 12:20 AM
I use to work as a salesman in a gun shop years ago and sold hundreds of firearms. I must admit I never met a gun that said "I think I will go kill someone today"
However here in Australia we successfully captured Jayant Patel Dr Death who was on the run for killing many of his patients 80 in total. http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Queenslands-Dr-Death-linked-to-80-deaths/2005/05/24/1116700709781.html

dan
Apr 23rd 2009, 11:47 PM
See the previous posts. The evidence does not support that IMO myth, as nations with strict gun control do not in fact have that problem. If you have evidence to support that like an example, please post it.

The best policy is not based on what might happen, but what has happened in places where that policy was enacted.

...That exactly what happened in England? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the parliment outlaw self defense, lock all the handguns up at the ranges and now, the only ones shooting are the criminals?

"... the police need to find out where these guns are coming from."

Shootings: 'We knew it would erupt again'

The Fenwick Place estate in Clapham is far from run-down but it's no stranger to drugs problems and shootings, writes BBC London's Steven Shukor

A blue tarpaulin cover swayed gently as residents on their way to work walked past, heads down, glancing furtive looks at the ground floor flat where a 15-year-old-boy was shot dead.

Youths, still in shock over the death of Billy Cox loitered around in the forecourt, staring at the media circus with silent hostility.

One boy actually walked up to a cameraman and took a swing at him, prompting police officers at the scene to quickly intervene.

Billy was found dying in the flat at 1540 GMT on Valentine's Day, in the Fenwick Place estate in Clapham North, south London.

Local housing adviser Brian Parker, a neighbour of the Cox family, described Billy as a "pleasant sort of chap" who would be seen playing football with other youths on the estate.

He said: "I knew Billy very well, I have known him since he was this high. He seemed morose and not very happy of late, but I have no idea why he was killed."

Mr Parker said Billy was from a hard working family. His father Tom works in the building trade and his 12-year-old sister Elizabeth is a promising dancer.

The estate has been here before.

While the medium low-rise blocks that make up the Fenwick estate are far from run-down, they have long been a hotspot for drug dealers, residents said.

In March 2004, Errol Anderson, 47, was convicted of selling cannabis at his Green Leaf cafe on Landor Road.

A month later, Nicholas Davis, 25, was shot dead in Fenwick Place, on Landor Road, in what was believed to be a dispute over drugs.

Resident Muria Piludu, who witnessed from her flat the row which ended in Mr Davis's murder, said: "Of course people now are scared.

"After that shooting things got quiet for a while, but the problems never went away."

Fenwick Place and the nearby Clapham Road Estate have for some time been a focal point for drug dealers operating off the bustling Clapham High Street, known locally as "Coke City".

"Fenwick Place isn't a sink estate" said Mr Parker. "Most people here are hard working and proud of this estate.

"It is one of the better estates in Lambeth, but it suffers from a lack of policing at weekends which is when the drug dealers do most of their business.

"People here are absolutely appalled, we've had this before and we all knew it would erupt again."

One resident, a father of two boys, said: "We haven't had anything like this for a while.

"All the young lads here play football together, it's generally a peaceful area.

"This is very disturbing. I think police need to find out where these guns are coming from but parents need to take responsibility for their children and make sure they are not getting mixed up with the wrong crowd."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2007/02/15/shootings_feature.shtml

News - West Midlands - Shooting victim seen having row . Last updated: 21 Apr 2009
The incident was the first fatal shooting in Birmingham since August last year, police said.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8010260.stm

News - London - Images of shooting suspect issued . Last updated: 31 Mar 2009
Ahmet Paytak died at the scene of the Holloway shooting Both men were shot while closing up the convenience store.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7974522.stm

News - Coventry/Warwickshire - Four held after shooting released . Last updated: 27 Mar 2009
Page last updated at 14:56 GMT, Friday, 27 March 2009 Four held after shooting released Four people arrested after a shooting have been released on bail.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/7967550.stm

News - Glasgow, Lanarkshire and West - Drivers stopped in shooting probe . Last updated: 24 Mar 2009
Police investigating a shooting in Glasgow question pedestrians and motorists near the scene in Petershill..
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7961806.stm

dan
Apr 25th 2009, 12:12 PM
...What the almost famous bumper snicker said?

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

dan
May 1st 2009, 03:17 AM
...On England's streets."

"61 gun crimes a day."

"The government mislead the public about gun policy."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec - link about the English gun ban

"Freedom is only for those with the guts to defend it."

dan
May 22nd 2009, 11:26 AM
A speech to the UN Small Arms Meeting by Professor Gary Mauser, Simon Fraser University, in British Columbia, Canada.

June 30, 2006
United Nations Small Arms Meeting -- New York

United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects
Professor Mauser in New York at The UN Disarmament Conference, made this presentation on June 30, 2006.

Mr President, distinguished delegates,

I am Professor Gary Mauser, Simon Fraser University, in British Columbia, Canada. I am representing the National Firearms Association. For 20 years, as part of my academic program with SFU's Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies, I have studied Canadian firearms legislation. I will briefly report on my findings.

Mr. President, Canada has gone through big changes in the past 15 years. In the 1990s Canada introduced a program to license firearms owners and register sporting rifles and shotguns. Previous firearms legislation had primarily focused on the criminal misuse of firearms as well as controlling handguns and fully automatic firearms.

The former government insisted on introducing this costly system despite contrary advice from the New Zealand government and from experienced Canadian civil servants. The new government, which has recently been elected after a campaign where gun control was central, has now decided to abandon the firearm registry.

"It has been demonstrated that the Canadian licensing and registration system is not cost-effective and has not reduced crime. Research shows that 71% of firearm licences were found to have errors, and over 250,000 guns were registered with the same serial numbers as stolen guns. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have said they have no faith in the information: and barely more than half of the guns (or gun owners) are included in the registry. The Auditor General of Canada has estimated that the registry has cost taxpayers more than one billion dollars, even though it was originally budgeted to cost only two million dollars. Reviewing the Canadian gun control program, she called it the worst case of cost overrun she has ever seen.

A few statistics demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the Canadian firearm registration system. Since 1998, when firearms were required to be registered, the homicide rate has increased by more than 3%. Despite the outrageous cost of the registry, the percentage of gun homicides has remained fixed at 27%. So with family homicides, where the percentage involving firearms has remained at 23%. Nor did the firearm registry change the proportion of homicide victims who are female (32%) since 1998.

The firearm registry has not saved any lives. While gun homicide numbers are indeed down, the proportion of domestic homicides involving guns has not declined, nor has the homicide rate declined. Instead it has increased. This suggests that crime rates are driven by sociological factors (such as the percentage of youth in the total population, and social conditions) rather than availability of just one method of murder.

Public opinion has reversed. In 1995, surveys showed large majorities supporting the registry; current polls show majorities (as high as 84%) wishing to abandon it as ineffective.

Mr. President, the central question is whether this approach to firearm regulation is defective in conception. To answer this question, I examined the success of legislation in a variety of English-speaking countries, some developed, some semi-developed, some undeveloped - including the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland, and Jamaica.

I could find no evidence that blanket gun regulations, even firearm prohibitions, contributed to a reduction of criminal violence in any of these countries. Firearm prohibitions failed to reduce criminal violence in both Jamaica and the Republic of Ireland. My results offer no support for those who advocate blanket gun laws.

I conclude by asking the General Assembly to reject the siren song of the anti-gun NGOs, Mr. President. The campaign to impose blanket prohibitive gun regulations is contrary to a growing body of research showing that in a wide variety of countries, arms prohibition does not contribute to lowering criminal violence.

There is a danger the UN will lose further trust and credibility around the globe, and ultimately take part in the prolongation of poverty, misery and the lack of prospect of entire peoples, by mistakenly directing its attention towards private gun ownership.

Dragonfighter1
May 22nd 2009, 03:11 PM
Dan,
An excellent post...
here's some humor to top it off with...
http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs027.snc1/4282_1180383990232_1247151021_30506590_1131068_n.j pg

dan
May 22nd 2009, 09:14 PM
Dan,
An excellent post...
here's some humor to top it off with...
http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs027.snc1/4282_1180383990232_1247151021_30506590_1131068_n.j pg

In the interest of "loving thy neighbor", don't ever post, or obey, this sign. But it is funny!:lol:

RevLogos
May 23rd 2009, 10:53 PM
There is a lot of discussion here on guns in crime in the UK and other countries. A very good analysis of this was done in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694) Volume 30, Number 2.

The two criminologists who did the study are not associated with an pro or anti gun political group and I tend to think they created a good and unbiased report. They are talking about exactly whet several of you are arguing over.

It can be found on the Internet here:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

It's about 50 pages, very detailed, lots of charts and figures.

One of the conclusions is:


Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).


[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent.

dan
Jun 15th 2009, 04:14 AM
...The fight goes on:

The NRA versus Chicago:

http://www.bnd.com/326/v-print/story/795091.html

Just don't try to discuss the subject on campus:

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/47141317.html

Even the judges disagree:

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/10/sotomayor-and-guns/

Dragonfighter1
Jun 16th 2009, 02:05 PM
The evidence is overwhelming that private ownership of guns reduces crime. Yet countless efforts will continue to try to twist the evidence and draw other conclusions.

But the big picture is being missed. The crime reduction argument is a straw man... the amendment was not given for crime protection was it? NO!

erhemmm.... what was it for again? I seem to have forgotten....

dan
Jun 17th 2009, 02:02 AM
The evidence is overwhelming that private ownership of guns reduces crime. Yet countless efforts will continue to try to twist the evidence and draw other conclusions.

But the big picture is being missed. The crime reduction argument is a straw man... the amendment was not given for crime protection was it? NO!

erhemmm.... what was it for again? I seem to have forgotten....

...mean we are supposed to have a militia instead of a standing army? That may be the reason about which the most is written.

But I would argue that the many advantages of the militia system were not lost on the Founding Fathers.

But, then, they read a lot.

An armed republic makes, and keeps, you free:

"An armed republic submits less easily to the rule of one of its citizens than a republic armed by foreign forces.
Rome and Sparta were for many centuries well armed and free. The Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom.
Among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible....It is not reasonable to suppose that one who is armed will obey willingly one who is unarmed; or that any unarmed man will remain safe among armed servants." -Machiavelli, "The Prince" (1532).

Armed men manufacture peace:

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction.

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity,the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty-so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator-and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?

Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impressions of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." -Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments" (1764).

"...And that the principal characters in the community would give a countenance to military improvements, by being present at public reviews and exhibitions, and by bringing into estimation amongst their fellow citizens, those who appear fond of cultivating military knowledge and who excel in the exercise of arms.

By giving such a tone to our establishment; by making it universally reputable to bear arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of military duties; in fine by keeping up in peace a well regulated militia and a disciplined militia, we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity, and independence of our country." - George Washington, "Sentiments On A Peace Establishment" ( 02 May 1783 ).

An armed populace is feared by an evil government:

"Nothing will make a nation so inconquerable as a militia, or every man's being trained to arms. And if the generality of housekeepers were only half-disciplined, a designing prince, or ministry, would hardly dare to provoke the people by an open attack on their liberties...But without the people's having some knowledge of arm's, I see not what is to secure them against slavery. A militiaman is a free citizen; a soldier, a slave for life..."
"The confidence, which a standing army gives a minister, puts him upon carrying things with a higher hand, than he would attempt to do, if the people were armed, and the court unarmed, that is, if there were no land-force in the nation but a militia. Had we at this time no standing army, we should not think of forcing money out of the pockets of three millions of our subjects..."
"There is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." -James Burgh, "Political Disquisitions" (1774).

dan
Jun 27th 2009, 08:27 AM
...Against gun control isn't just in the US.

In South Africa:

"...The arbitrary confiscation of property without compensation must stop!"

http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/60e14344efc34b8391d2e324a9189edd//Black_gun_owners_to_protest

In Canada:

"...The present Canadian firearms program was misdirected from the beginning."

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=1722611

Elijah's Mantle
Jul 8th 2009, 03:36 AM
:rofl: this thread is so fuuuunie :rofl: u cheers me up dragonfighter1 :bounce:

Dragonfighter1
Jul 8th 2009, 10:37 PM
:rofl: this thread is so fuuuunie :rofl: u cheers me up dragonfighter1 :bounce:
http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs14/f/2007/041/a/6/Nintendo_Guns_by_LuigiUser.gifI try I try!! lol